“Power begs to be balanced”: this quote qualifies Waltz’s ideological position pithily. The passive tense of this phrase is parallel with neorealists’ commitment that states’ behaviours are determined by the objective constraints that the international system imposes. In the article, Waltz makes a persuasive argument, in my opinion, that Iran should be allowed (by greater powers) to develop nuclear bombs, as past instances suggest that nuclear enrichment would likely leads to greater stability instead of less. However, other neorealists will take issue with some statements he makes.  

Waltz asserts that aggressive expansion of power will likely lead to pushback from other powers. In the neorealist paradigm, increase in Iranian power ipso facto hurts other powers, who might form a coalition against Iran, which Iranians, as rational actors, should be aware of and avoid. Thereby, great powers such as the US should not worry about Iran’s rising nuclear capacity, as Iran would be cautious after nuclear enrichment. However, this position would be debated by offensive neorealists such as John Mearsheimer. They would argue that coalitions are insufficient as countries naturally buck-pass, so that possibility would not be enough to intimidate Iran. Iran would continue to increase military power as much as possible, so the US should try to prevent that from happening. In their paradigm, the system makes it so that nations seek every opportunity to maximize power.

Furthermore, Waltz seems to believe that balanced power would be more likely to lead to security in a region – as in, the Middle East might become more stable if Iran acquires the military capacity to counter Israel. The rationale is perhaps that Iran and Israel could work to control each other’s military empowerment. However, some other neorealist theorists would disagree, as if there is only one great power in the region (Israel), that great power can control other states’ ambitions, and the power itself will feel secure against a group of much less powerful competitors, thus not likely to be too aggressive. For the latter theorists, power does not have to be balanced, because status quo can be maintained. 

The fact that we are talking about nuclear power, instead of other military power, complicates the situation. Because neither power, whether as the defender or the rising power, will have the advantage, so reluctant peace is likely to follow, as in the case of the United States and the Soviet Union. Yet some other neorealists might believe that a power rising against the preponderant power is very dangerous, as that situation presents a direct conflict of interest unmitigated by other states in the region. As one can see, although Kenneth Waltz is perhaps the most recognizable name among the neorealists, his positions are not unchallenged. 

When I registered into this course, I expected to learn different types of systems, as listed in the course description. When thinking about systems, I picture blocs of nations in my head: America, Canada, and its European allies could be a system, Sub-Saharan countries perhaps have a system among themselves, Western Europe can be a system, East Asia, and Southeastern Asia, etc., the list goes on. I think of an international system as a structure under which members share similar concerns, philosophies, history, diplomatic codes, and of course, nation states are the primary agents (I never really encountered any occasion where I needed to seriously question that assumption). Further, reading the course description, I expected the course to be about how different -isms and -ologies impact the decisions of these blocs of nations. Having listened to a couple of lectures, obviously the content of this course is going to be broader and more creative than what I had in mind. 

Near the end of my degree in International Relations at UBC, I still have a very faint grasp on the subject, and what I have learnt is probably very different from the next student in the same major at the same school. If somebody asks: what did you learn about International Relations? The best answer I can come up with is “depends on the situation”. I sometimes wonder if this is due to the lack of my own academic abilities, or perhaps due to my lack of direction when selecting my courses (I picked whatever seemed interesting to me at the time). At this point in the course, I think perhaps my doubts can be partially, if minutely, answered by the changing nature of the field of International Relations itself. If there is no consensus on epistemology and purpose of scholarship, no wonder there is no set structure on how it is taught, what is taught, and what constitutes as a necessary field of knowledge in IR. 

Musings about my own qualifications aside, I was drawn to this course due to the word “system”. I have long been under the impression that the United States of America established its hegemony by imposing its system onto the world after the two world wars. I am aware that is a broad statement to make, and I want to make clear that I am not asserting that the US supported the founding of some world organization specifically for the benefit of itself and its allies, nor do I in fact know the details of the operations and power politics within these organizations. However, it is true that the creator of any system would more easily derive benefits from the system.

The system of UNSC, for example, is notorious for having five powers that can veto proposals. Needless to say, this system has resounding impacts on global relations. Why is this structure, implemented just after WWII, still in place today? Is it still to the benefits of those in the council that this system is in place? Is the concept of benefit and welfare of members even actually a concern for this organization? How do we change this system, if it is not ideal? It is a little scary to know that the implementer of a system is also the decision maker about rules regarding how to make the changes to the system too. System is the rules of the game, and its existence will not only impact a player’s fate during the time of its existence but also beyond: path dependence effects are powerful, which is one of many reasons why systems are worth studying.

As a student, I have an easier time raising examples regarding the importance of systems in academic settings. Even on UBC campus, students who are more familiar with the facilities and resources will have an easier time navigating it. Students whose family members have gone to university will have a better sense about perhaps how to approach a professor,  Students who have gone to BC high schools, for example, may have an easier time pinpointing what a professor expects to see and hear in a class discussion than, say, an international student from a different kind of education system. Familiarity with a relevant system may be as important as one’s ability. On broader terms, nations that are integrated into a dominant system would have to struggle less than other states to survive. Therefore, comparing to theories, I am much less knowledgeable but much more interested in the concept of systems. 

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!