chapter 4: structural realism by john j. mearsheimer

1. Chapter 4: Structural RealismBy John J. Mearsheimer

2. Learning outcomes After this lecture you should be able to: Know the defining features of structural realism, especially the role of power Understand the key differences between offensive and defensive realism Debate how various structural realists read the rise of China Know why proponents believe structural realism to be a better explanation of the dynamics of the contemporary system

3. Realism and Power Realists believe that power is the currency of international politics. It is based on the material capabilities that a state controls States compete for power, and do all they can to shift the balance of power in their favour Classical realists believed conflict was hardwired into human nature Structural realists believe the international system forces states to pursue power politics

4. Five Assumptions�. Great powers are the main actors and they operate in an anarchic international system All states possess offensive military capability � this varies over time States can never be certain about other states� intentions. A defensive military doctrine espoused by one state can look like offensive threat to another The main goal of states is survival States are rational actors operating with imperfect information: they sometimes make serious mistakes

5. Offensive vs. Defensive Realism Offensive realists argue that states should always be looking for opportunities to gain more power, with the ultimate prize being hegemony Defensive realists argue that unrelenting expansion is imprudent � conquest is often costly and troublesome Defensive realists such as Kenneth Waltz, argue that states should seek an �appropriate amount of power� (1989: 40)

6. Which is less war-prone:Bipolarity or Multipolarity? Bipolarity there is less opportunity for great powers to fight each other in a bipolar world equality between great powers tends to be more even, and balancing behaviour is easier there is greater potential for miscalculation in multipolarity Multipolarity More great powers is better in part because deterrence is easier In multipolarity, more states can join together to confront an aggressive state There is less hostility among the great powers as their attention is more diffused

7. Is Unipolarity less war prone? With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, many realists argue that unipolarity has arrived Such a world is likely to be more stable than either bipolarity or multipolarity Logically, there can be no war or security competition among great powers; minor powers will not cause any trouble for fear of offending the unipolar power The dangers of a unipolar world is that the absence of security competition encourages the great power to withdraw from outer regions Or a hegemon uses its overwhelming power to engage in ideological engineering

8. Case study discussion Can China Rise Peacefully? & How Should the US Respond?

9. Offensive realist answer Predict that China and the USA will engage in security competition A rising China will imitate the USA to become a regional hegemon in Asia This means removing all local threats to its security and pushing American military forces out of Asia This will be resisted by the USA as it does not tolerate peer competitors

10. Defensive Realist Answer Defensive realists argue that it would be smarter for China to consolidate its power rather than have a run at establishing regional hegemony Nuclear weapons in the hands of rivals such as India ought to restrain China The costs of a highly interventionist foreign policy are exorbitantly high

11. 9/11 and Realism�s Return After 9/11, realism has made a stunning comeback. Liberal optimism of the 1990s now deflated Giddy predictions of globalizers about the end of the state have proved to be premature War again appears to be a regular feature of the international system Structural realists were right to predict that the 2003 Iraq War was a significant strategic error on the part of the US and its partners Security competition in West, South and East Asia reminds us that the world remains a dangerous place