Power dynamics within the international community are constantly shifting amongst nations as states continuously lose or gain power at the expense of others. The international relations theory of neorealism attempts to identify which systems of polarity offer the best results to global order in a world of anarchy. This does not mean that the world is in a perpetual state of chaos, but that there is no overarching authority to hold sovereign states accountable for their actions on the international stage. Neorealism explains that states do not pursue power due to inherent human nature like classical realism believes, but that the pursuit of power is a product of the anarchical structure of the world. It is therefore in a state’s best interest to attain however much power is necessary in order to protect themselves as they can never be certain of the intentions of other international actors (Dunne, Kurki and Smith). The goal of becoming a regional hegemon, in particular, is often driven by the self-interests and values of the sovereign state, as well as the geographical location of the country itself. National values along with identity conceptions play a significant role in constructing these national interests which in turn play a role in the foreign policy decision-making processes of whether to pursue further power or not (Köstem). In reality, regional hegemony is the superior goal of states as obtaining global hegemony is near impossible as it would involve the control of other states across large oceans a great distance away (Dunne, Kurki and Smith). Although, offensive realists such as John Mearsheimer argue that preponderant power should be the ultimate goal of states as dominance over other nations is the only way to secure one’s own security and self-interests (Mearsheimer). Despite this claim, Mearsheimer does recognize the significant difficulties in our world, with its vast oceans, poses to a country’s military logistical capabilities (Mearsheimer). Defensive realists, on the other hand, would argue that pursuit of any type of hegemony would ultimately lead to a state’s demise as the international system would punish them by forming a balancing coalition (Waltz, The Emerging Structure of International Politics). These coalitions are made up of an opposing group of states which work together militarily to hinder the rising powers progress and keep their dominance at a level manageable by the international community as a whole. This coalition strategy was used against Charles Napoleon of France, Wilhelm II of Imperial Germany and Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany who each focused imperial ambition on obtaining regional hegemony in Europe which was met by an overwhelming opposing coalition that easily defeated each contester (Rosenberg). Some states choose to engage in buck-passing, meaning they attempt to have other states assume the burden of checking powerful opponents, so they do not have to be directly involved themselves. This could lead to great powers who consistently shoulder the workload of checking rising powers to become dissatisfied with periphery states and may leave them stranded in the future. Counter to this though, neorealism demonstrates how it should be in every great powers’ self-interest to challenge potential rising powers no matter of their location in the world in order to keep multiple powers in a region present and focused on themselves rather than the great power itself. The formation of balancing coalitions also shows why geographical location is an important factor when considering states strategies to pursue regional hegemony or not, as an area very densely populated with different powers such as Europe would be much harder to control than regions with only a few states such as North America. From a neorealist perspective, power is generally thought of as being obtained solely through the means of war and military might, but certain national values and interests may guide a state to pursue hegemony by means of increasing population and cultural influence, and economic advancement to increase their share of global wealth (Dunne, Kurki and Smith). This is seen in the case of China where they have slowly become a dominant force in the Asia region by accumulating a massive population paired with extensive economic progress without ever coming into direct conflict by attempting to conquer the territory of another state. As defensive realists like Kenneth Waltz stress, China should not try to maximize its share of world power as it would risk growing large enough to come into contact with balancing coalitions which could potentially knock them down further in rank than they were previously. An important value of all states is sovereignty, which is why if China were to obtain regional hegemony in Asia it would most likely look to force the removal of US troops in the surrounding area as it would become increasingly important to keep a militarily weak Russia and Japan at its borders. This would fall under the offensive realist strategy of obtaining as much power as possible with the goal of reaching security and safety for the state. The USA realized the importance of being the sole, dominant military force near home soil and implemented the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 which opposed British colonialism in the Americas and forced the removal of all British troops from the region (Dunne, Kurki and Smith). Neorealism also holds its focus exclusively on the state, forgetting about the fact that national interests are often influenced by large private corporations, or even the general populace (Rosenberg). This connection between society and state interests is further explained that social power can often constrain state policy in democratic countries which operate on the basis of public opinion. This is a significant flaw of neorealism as public opinion has become an increasingly effective tool for the modern state as it can utilize and manipulate societal interests to gain support for foreign policies (Rosenberg). In terms of the neorealist view that power must be obtained by military might, Rosenberg explains how military power and economic power differ as the economy is not a constituted instrument ready at the disposal of the state (Rosenberg). This means that the state has placed a value on the structure of property rights that removes market relationships from direct political control as a significant amount of domestic capital is owned by private firms. On the other hand, the military unit is a direct branch of the state used to pursue offensive capabilities internationally and defend the homeland (Rosenberg). National interests also dictate whether a state becomes a revisionist state determined to use force to alter the balance of power or a status-quo state who is satisfied with the power balance (Dunne, Kurki and Smith). This decision is often based on the current level of economic prosperity as a state may look to gain more power in order to exploit resources and gain an economic advantage over its competitors. Furthermore, a state may simply not have the offensive military capabilities to operate as a revisionist state but in an anarchical system, could switch at any moment. This component of neorealism highlights how in an anarchical society states can never be truly certain of another’s actions as there is no international governing body to make sure agreements are followed through with, making cooperation between states each seeking their own self-interest only contingently rational (Waltz).
The United States of America can be described as a regional hegemon because of its economic trade dominance with its regional neighbours Canada and Mexico, and for its vastly greater military power compared to the rest of the Western Hemisphere. The geographical location of the US also contributes to its status as regional hegemon as it is shielded on either side by two ocean barriers which distance it from many conflicts occurring in other parts of the world (Hunter). Furthermore, the US has followed the theory of balancing coalitions set forth by defensive realists as it has consistently engaged in foreign military campaigns such as in WWII and in the Invasion of Iraq in order to secure its position as a dominant power. The United States has also self-described its national values as strategic thinking, strength at home, proper assessment of tasks and priorities, and interests of allies and partners (Hunter). These values showcase why the US has routinely become deeply intertwined in conflicts at the international level to provide influence abroad as it is acting in its own self-interest, as well as staying loyal to friends and allies (Hunter). As Prys points out, a regional hegemony is often expected to radiate positive influences on region-specific problems such as conflict, economic deprivation, and political instability (Prys). This has remained true in the past in the case of the USA as the region of North America has been kept conflict-free for a long time and economic partnerships such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have contributed to increased prosperity overall. In South Africa after 1994, Western powers also hoped that the country would act as an economic growth engine and boost other nations’ economies within their shared region. It was also anticipated that South African dominance would help to mitigate African conflicts and provide stability through the strengthening of regional organizations (Prys, Hegemony, Domination, Detachment: Differences in Regional Powerhood). A possible counterargument to this idea could occur if a regional hegemon focused more of its resources and efforts on issues pertaining to the global community, and not taking care of possible issues arising in their own backyard (Prys, Hegemony, Domination, Detachment: Differences in Regional Powerhood). This could result in negative reactions by neighbouring states if they view this disregard as being exploitive of their positions and minimal power within the region, leading to a potential challenger arising (Prys, Hegemony, Domination, Detachment: Differences in Regional Powerhood).
On a global scale, most international conflicts are due to the pursuit of power based on ideological values and security. During the Cold War Era, the United States stood in opposition to the Soviet Union because it viewed communism as an unacceptable ideology which required military action in order to suppress rising great power challengers (Waltz, The Emerging Structure of International Politics). The fact that the Soviet Union had acquired nuclear weapons also posed a significant threat to the United States as weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have the potential to wipe out the very existence of an entire state. Security threats on home soil such as the attack on Pearl Harbour, or 9/11 have influenced the United States to proceed in forming balancing coalitions with international allies in order to protect its own self-interest from rising hostile states. The same balancing scenario has taken place in the Middle East region where Iran was determined that its national security depended on its ability to possess nuclear weapons. Iran’s perceived necessity to obtain nuclear weapons could be seen as an attempt to balance regional power with Israel who had bombed other countries before and made threats to Iran regarding their nuclear weapons program. By defensive realism, Israel’s threats are rational as they have historically enjoyed dominance in the Middle Eastern region and are now rationally attempting to counter a potential challenger in Iran (Waltz, Why Iran Should Get the Bomb). Iran’s valuation of national sovereignty clearly helped guide its decision as it chose to ignore international sanctions and embargos imposed on them (Waltz, Why Iran Should Get the Bomb). The Middle East is also the only region where there exists a lone unchecked nuclear state, making Iran’s close geographical proximity to Israel a significant security concern for the nation. As for the international community, the US and European governments voiced their distrust in Iran based on the fact that Western values and interests would be at stake if the ‘irrational’ actions of Iran were not halted by allied states.
Mearsheimer’s offensive realism claims that states want not only to maximize their share of world power at the expense of others but to obtain hegemon status as the only great power in the system (Mearsheimer). States value their security and safety and recognize that being a great power will maintain those things far more effectively than by reducing to a status-quo state. This is why regional hegemons like the United States will look to ensure no other regional hegemons arise so that multiple power regions remain focused on each other, rather than having another great regional power emerge with the possibility of threatening the USA (Mearsheimer). In my opinion, defensive realists’ theory like Kenneth Waltz are much more logical as states can still enjoy dominance, or even regional hegemony but must recognize when to hold off from imposing onto other great powers and initiating a balancing coalition to react. The US walks a fine line as it has clearly established itself as the regional hegemon in the Western Hemisphere but needs to be cautious when intervening in foreign issues which it has no real authority over in other parts of the world. States deeply value sovereignty and do not take kindly to other nations pushing through their borders or constraining them through economic tariffs or sanctions. The neorealist idea that power is the most important component of international relations is clearly demonstrated through these examples as states strive to become hegemons in their respective regions in order to foster prosperity for the state.
Bibliography
Dunne, Timm, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Hunter, Robert E. A New Grand Strategy for the United States. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2008.
Köstem, Seçkin. “Different Paths to Regional Hegemony: National Identity Contestation and Economic Strategy in Russia and Turkey.” Review of International Political Economy (2018).
Mearsheimer, John. “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.” Norton and Company (2001).
Prys, Miriam. “Hegemony, Domination, Detachment: Differences in Regional Powerhood.” International Studies Review (2010): 479-504.
Prys, Miriam. “Redefining Regional Power in International Relations.” Routledge (2012).
Rosenberg, Justin. “What is the Matter with Realism?” Review of International Studies (1990): 285-303.
Waltz, Kenneth. “The Emerging Structure of International Politics.” Internatonal Security (1993): 44-79.
Waltz, Kenneth. “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb.” Foreign Affairs (2012).