Is Fundamental Change Possible?: A Response

The class debate on the nature of the international system and its ability to be changed was incredibly riveting and forced me to carefully consider my position as both sides made very strong arguments.  Ultimately, my personal position was shaped in part through this debate process and in the end, I find myself favoring the idea that change is entirely possible.  After reading through the posts numerous times and nitpicking as best I could (trying on each of the different models discussed in the readings for this module), I find that I accept Waltz’ general ideal that security matters most of all to states and therefore would go further to state that understanding the threats to states will determine how states will structure themselves in response to it.

I came to this conclusion after carefully reviewing the arguments made in the debate, with a few particular items standing out.  On the pro side, the fundamental point being made is that there are numerous examples of cooperation taking place within this anarchic international system which simply cannot be explained by traditional realist thinking.  As we stated in our opening statement: “Realists accurately apply rational choice, but fall short in contemplating how their choices can develop into powerful arrangements when coalesced with like minds.”

Cooperation can be advantageous to states in ways that may conflict with what is perceived as their “interests”.  Neorealists argue that security is more important than power and therefore, we were able to contend that sometimes cooperation is the best way to get at security.  The international system can certainly seem structural and binding, but that structure and those bounds have the ability to produce rational outcomes that are fundamentally different from what we might expect (or fundamentally different from what we had previously grown accustomed to).

In their rebuttal, the con team made the argument that the quest for power and security will always drive state actors and that because limited resources and conflicting interests are inevitable, so too is the probability of war and the constancy of the international system.  A couple of major points that I, as a pro-teamer, really took issue with was the apparent equivocation of “power” with “security” and the definition of ‘fundamental’ change. 

Concerning the former, the con team made the following statement within their argument: “As long as actors worry about their security or have concern about imbalance of power and/or resources, the international environment will remain unchanged”.  From my perspective, the difference between “power” and “security” is important and worth noting.  Naturally, if a state has more power, it will presumably be able to provide more security…or will it?  Waltz discusses the importance of balance and in Risk-like fashion, actors will need to act to prevent any one state from gaining too much, therefore ultimately diminishing their own security. With that said, cooperation and security alliances, such as NATO, represent rational institutions that were created to address exactly these sorts of problems.  The question that I find myself asking in making this distinction between power and security is: “What if a rational institution like NATO expanded so far that it encompassed all states in the system”?  This would respect Waltz’ argument that security is most important and this would certainly increase security for all parties, drastically reducing the likelihood of war.

This leads to my second contention with the con argument, which is how they define fundamental change.  Would the aforementioned example represent “fundamental change” based upon their definition?  They defined fundamental change by stating: “Fundamental change, in our view, would require actors to give up or evolve their current sovereign territorial claims and entirely eliminate their fear for their own security and desire for power.” If we follow through with the example of an ever-expanding security agreement like NATO, wouldn’t that meet their definition for fundamental change? 

A fair question to follow would be: “Is such a broad expansion possible?” To answer that, we’d need to answer whether or not each state possesses the agency to take part in such an alliance.  From my perspective, the answer would be “yes”.  Harkening back to Goldstein and Keohane, actors would need to possess “shared beliefs about the spirit of agreements” as these “are essential to the maintenance of cooperation” (Goldstein & Koehane, 1993, p.19), but assuming these shared beliefs were held, can we not maintain that change is possible?

Finally, even if we do not assume that states would ever be able to come to terms with such an alliance, is it not fair to maintain that if security is the biggest focus for all players that understanding the nature of threats to security serve as a major factor for determining the nature of the system itself and its ability to change?  If threats to security are rapidly changing, does it not follow that the system itself therefore must change with them?  Modern “threats” are defined by things like international terrorism and climate change…issues that have no respect for the boundaries we’ve established around each other.  If threats have ways of absolving boundaries, actors must do so in kind if they are to remain protected from them. This is especially true in a world with ever-capable technologies such as UAVs, powerful SAM systems, and of course, nuclear weapons.  If we can turn on these technologies and increase the cost of war such that no state will be interested in waging it, isn’t it fair to say that other major states are no longer to be viewed as “threats”?

The con team argued in their first rebuttal: “The system may change, but the nature of the international environment cannot.”  I am inclined to agree with this assertion, but would argue that the nature of the international environment, by their own definition, does not need to be changed in order to constitute fundamental change.  The ways in which we respond to the threats posed by the international environment is what is ultimately at issue and personally, I maintain that we must understand threats if we are to understand the international system and its ability to change.  Because threats are constantly changing and evolving, so too is the international system and therefore, I state as I did in the debate, that fundamental change is not only possible, but occurring every day.

Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. (1993). Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework. Deas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from https://au-mir.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/Jackson International Relations/Readings/Goldstein - Ideas and Foreign Policy.pdf