In a word, cause and effect. If the cause is structure, and structure is anarchic, meaning that there is no supreme government over governments, then anarchy leads to a pattern of behavior among states which is characterized first and foremost by fear, self-help, and power maximization. This is perhaps the basic and inherent logic embedded in the theory of political realism. The aforementioned is the summation of the basic logic embedded in the theory of political realism.
But of course, we must make the distinction between national politics and international politics yet again in order to develop our chain of thought or perhaps even the basic logic of the theory itself. To borrow from Waltz: “National politics is the realm of authority, of administration, and of law. International politics is the realm of power, of struggle, and of accommodation.” He added:
“The international realm is preeminently a political one. The national realm is variously described as being hierarchic, vertical, centralized, heterogenous, directed, and contrived; the international realm, as being anarchic, horizontal, decentralized, homogeneous, undirected, and mutually adaptive. The more centralized the order, the nearer to the top the locus of decisions ascends. Internationally, decisions are made at the bottom level, there being scarcely any other. In the vertical horizontal dichotomy, international structures assume the prone position. Adjustments are made internationally, but they are made without a formal or authoritative adjuster. Adjustment and accommodation proceed by mutual adaptation. Action and reaction, and reaction to reaction, proceed by a piecemeal process. The parties feel each other out, so to speak, and define a situation simultaneously with its development.”
In a word, anarchy. And as mentioned before, anarchy means there is no one to command or to obey in the international system, and as a result, everyone will seek to gain an advantage over the other “by maneuvering, by bargaining, or by fighting.” It is not necessarily about conflict. It is about structure. Structure is the cause, conflict is the effect. And anarchy is at the heart of the structure. Waltz added: “The manner and intensity of the competition is determined by the desires and the abilities of parties that are at once separate and interacting.”
Therefore, force will be used in order to advance an interest or to achieve a goal. In a sense, force supersedes reason in international affairs, given that structure prompts conflict. Force “looms always as a threat in the background.”
And ironically, without the threat of force looming in the background, there would be no settlements to disputes. To borrow from Waltz: “The constant possibility that force will be used limits manipulations, moderates demands, and serves as an incentive for the settlement of disputes.” In turn: “One who knows that pressing too hard may lead to war has strong reason to consider whether possible gains are worth the risks entailed.”
Waltz compared force in international affairs to strikes in domestic labor disputes. Israel, for instance, will push the United States to destroy Iran because Israel cannot destroy Iran on its own. But when Russia steps in and boosts Iran by threatening Israel directly, or when Iran tells America that if you strike us, Israel is gone, all of it has “sobering effects” on the parties involved. In sum, the cost of protracted wars leads to accommodation in the end. There are “virtues” to anarchy after all.
Adam A. Azim 