Two readings, in particular, have caught my attention and I find them extremely relevant. We began the course with the study of realism and last week covered the concept of hegemonic stability theory.
Our earlier reading specifically focused on different strands of Structural Realism. Having only known about classical realism and the general components of realism, which includes self-interested motives in pursuit of power in an anarchic world, I had a hard time identifying with which theory I identified with. As I talked about in my first blog, my background as an Iranian girl, naturally drew me to realist ideas; That all countries are after their own self-interest and Iran, having been isolated for so many years from the global community, must also be in pursuit of military expansion and gaining more power. However, I also believe that a selfish anarchic system can only lead to destructive competition. I believe in cooperation but one that is done in the self- interest of a state. In fact, through cooperation, the interests of states are more easily achieved. Having had this view of politics, naturally, defensive structural realism was the strand that stood out to me the most. Another element that distinguishes defensive realists from the other strands is their stand on hegemony. Defensive realists are not in pursuit of maximizing their power as they believe it will put them at a greater risk. As the name suggests their approaches are more defensive and conservative in an attempt to reach their self-interest.
On the other hand, we discussed the concept of hegemonic stability theory which states that in the presence of a hegemon- Pax Britannica, the hegemony of Great Britain and Pax Americana, the current period of American hegemony- the world is more stable and is at peace. Being a realist I disagree with the above statement. Even though the world might appear to be at peace, in my opinion, the absence of war does not necessarily bring forward peace.
In the world of today, countries go to war by destroying each other’s economy through sanctions, by isolating countries by forming exclusive coalitions and by engaging in proxy wars. Additionally, countries can still be in tension in the absence of war.
As the reading by Kobane suggests, the world does need leadership, however, I believe, that a single hegemon would not necessarily take this position, but instead would misuse their position in pursuit of their interest. There are many states in today’s world with different interests, some of which contradicts with that of American values. The United States cannot possibly act as neutral hegemon in pursuit of collective gains and world peace while maintaining its hegemony.
Additionally, it is very tempting for any individual- in the view of realism the state- with great powers, not to use their power for their personal gains. Intuitively, in order to remain powerful, they must be in pursuit of their self-interest rather than making sacrifices and engaging as the referee or the leader of the world. I argue that the United States hasn’t acted as a leader or a referee but more so as a strong state who is powerful enough to attain its goals and execute its plans.