An Odd Tradeoff

One might ask: how do alliances figure into what is essentially a self-help system? The answer is that alliances are temporary, not permanent. Certain states will band together when a common threat arises, and as soon as the common threat is dealt with, the alliance dissolves, as in the case of the alliance between Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, and the Taliban when the United States occupied Afghanistan. If the alliance does not dissolve, states are tied down to an alliance which serves no purpose, and in the end, states will not be able to freely pursue their goals and interests. And if states are not free to pursue their goals and interests, the state will end up dying. Autonomy is to states as water is to life. Plain and simple. 

The key, however, is that there is no authority or organization above states which can control states. In turn, this leads to an odd tradeoff between freedom and security. And in the end, states choose freedom over security. To borrow from Kenneth Waltz:

“States, like people, are insecure in proportion to the extent of their freedom. If freedom is wanted, insecurity must be accepted. Organizations that establish relations of authority and control may increase security as they decrease freedom. If might does not make right, whether among people or states, then some institution or agency has intervened to lift them out of nature’s realm. The more influential the agency, the stronger the desire to control it becomes.” 

Waltz added:

“In contrast, units in an anarchic order act for their own sakes and not for the sake of preserving an organization and furthering their fortunes within it. Force is used for one’s own interest. In the absence of organization, people or states are free to leave one another alone. Even when they do not do so, they are better able, in the absence of the politics of the organization, to concentrate on the politics of the problem and to aim for a minimum agreement that will permit their separate existence rather than a maximum agreement for the sake of maintaining unity. If might decides, then bloody struggles over right can more easily be avoided.” 

Force employed on a national level differs from force employed on an international level, in the sense that force on a national level “is exercised in the name of right and justice.” Whereas force on an international level is employed by a government or state “for the sake of its own protection and advantage.” Arguably, force employed on an international level does not “settle” anything except determine who is the strongest. Whereas force used on a national level determines legitimacy and the right to rule. To borrow from Waltz: “Nationally, relations of authority are established. Internationally, only relations of strength result.”

At the moment, the Sino-Russian alliance is stronger than the United States. Russia now builds missiles that move at the speed of sound and at any distance and can penetrate any defense system. China now has the world’s largest navy, and naval supremacy automatically translates into global supremacy. Not to mention Asia’s overall land supremacy, with control and power being concentrated in land supremacy. It will take immense brainpower and energy and money to keep up with such capabilities. But with egregious debt and populism, the United States can no longer keep up with those kinds of capabilities, spurred in large part by an arms race which Russia and China are now imposing on the United States at a time when the United States seeks arms limitations. Perhaps the sole task of a superpower is to orient themselves to the changes in the material capabilities of their peer powers. Which means that in the case of the United States, the sole task is to orient itself to the changes in the material capabilities of Russia and China. Changes in the material capabilities of peer powers signals changes in the overall balance of power between the peer powers. And the balance of power is everything in international affairs. It all begs the question: is the United States even up to the sole task of orienting itself to the change in the overall material capabilities and thus the overall balance of power between itself and Russia and China? In my humble opinion, the answer is no, for a variety of reasons.