The Brooding Shadow of Violence

The primary focus of the major powers (America, Russia, and China) is the material capabilities of one another. When the material capabilities of each major power changes, so does the balance or the distribution of power between them. And that is exactly what has occurred in recent years. America’s drive into egregious debt has led Russia and China to jumpstart an arms race which America is not capable of handling at the moment. Due to the change in material capabilities between the three major powers, America seeks arms limitations, while Russia and China now seek an arms race. 

“The state among states…conducts its affairs in the brooding shadow of violence.” Kenneth Waltz wrote: “The threat of violence and the recurrent use of force are said to distinguish international from national affairs.” People can also overthrow their own governments through violence. The presence of a government is enough to ensure the chances of people overthrowing their government, for a number of reasons. There is in fact a greater chance of civil war than international war, as Waltz argued. Arguably, throughout history, wars within states have occurred more often than wars between states. 

The difference between the use of violence by the state and the use of violence by private actors is the difference between the “legitimate” use of violence and illegitimate use of violence, as Waltz argued. In theory, the government is supposed to protect its citizens, which in turn makes the government’s use of violence legitimate. Waltz also noted that interdependence arises within and between states as a result of the differences in capabilities. A “division of labor” arises within and between states. But soon enough, the cooperation between states is thwarted by the structure of the international system, according to the realist theory of international relations. 

Between states, the system is one of self-help. Within states, people are to help one another. To borrow from Waltz: “In a self-help system each of the units spends a portion of its effort, not in forwarding its own good, but in providing the means of protecting itself against others.” The condition of the international system is one of insecurity. Plain and simple. As a result, the basic condition of the international system in which states find themselves “works against their cooperation.” 

In short, the goal for states is basic survival, and the worry over basic survival “conditions their behavior.” States also want as much power for themselves as possible, and they also avoid becoming too dependent on others. At least that is how a rational state actor behaves. When you become too dependent, you have to go over the top to secure what and who you are dependent on. Therefore, the essence of state behavior is “their imperial thrusts to widen the scope of their control and their autarchic strivings toward greater self-sufficiency.” 

In turn, the structure will punish states for not behaving the way in which the structure compels states to behave, namely, as rational actors who seek basic survival first and foremost. No one else can be counted on to guarantee a state’s survival. While a state can foster specialization and form a division of labor at home, it cannot do so internationally, as Marx argued. The desire to form a division of labor internationally is overridden by the demands of the structure to act in a manner that renders a state self-sufficient. Security trumps wealth, in the sense that the economic gain which would arise from a global division of labor is superseded by the self-help system. As Waltz argued: “Rather than increased well-being, their reward is in the maintenance of their autonomy.” And to conclude: “States compete, but not by contributing their individual efforts to the joint production of goods for their mutual benefit.”