In short, it is all about international structure when we assess international affairs, and international structure equals “anarchy.” This equation or formula, in turn, leads to an inherent logic in international relations. In other words, anarchy leads to an inherent logic in international relations. To borrow from John Mearsheimer:
“Great powers…are always searching for opportunities to gain power over their rivals, with hegemony as their final goal. This perspective does not allow for status quo powers, except for the unusual state that achieves preponderance. Instead, the system is populated with great powers that have revisionist intentions at their core.”
In a word, status quo and revolution, or mainstream and revisionism. Great powers such as Russia and China will not stop until there is a complete change in the status quo of international affairs, based on this line of reasoning or logic. Our international structure is in fact an enduring Cold War structure due to the inherent logic of the structure which stems from the basic organizing principle of the structure, namely, anarchy. We must also define “anarchy” within an international relations context. To borrow from Mearsheimer yet again:
“By itself…the realist notion of anarchy has nothing to do with conflict; it is an ordering principle, which says that the system comprises independent states that have no central authority above them. Sovereignty, in other words, inheres in states because there is no higher ruling body in the international system. There is no ‘government over governments.’”
As a result, and in many cases, states are aggressive towards one another and are distrustful of one another. It is not a requirement that states be aggressive and distrustful towards one another. Certain states will have good relations with one another. But given the core organizing principle of the international structure at least from a realist perspective, it is expected that certain states will be aggressive and distrustful towards one another. America and Russia are case in point.
Survival is thus the main goal in an anarchic international structure, based on the realist theory of international relations. And given that survival is the main goal for both states and the individual in the international system, states and individuals are expected to be “rational actors” and as a result it is assumed that states and individuals “are aware of their external environment and they think strategically about how to survive in it.”
According to Mearsheimer, given that survival is the primary goal for states in the international system, there are three basic “patterns of behavior” which emerge out of state-to-state interaction: fear, self-help, and power maximization. To borrow from Mearsheimer yet again:
“Great powers do not compete with each other as if international politics were merely an economic marketplace. Political competition among states is a much more dangerous business than mere economic intercourse; the former can lead to war, and war often means mass killing on the battlefield as well as mass murder of civilians. In extreme cases, war can even lead to the destruction of states. The horrible consequences of war sometimes cause states to view each other not just as competitors, but as potentially deadly enemies. Political antagonism, in short, tends to be intense, because the stakes are great.”
In short, international affairs and international relations is a high-risk, high-stakes game which involves great danger and peril. It is a game of life and death, and must be played with great caution and with acute cognizance of the risks and perils involved. Enter at your own risk.
Adam A. Azim 