International Relations Kenneth Walsh States

International Relations

Kenneth Walsh states that the system of international politics still exists despite the strength and pace of changes within the system. He argues that the essential power structures have not changed. "If the system were transformed, international politics would no longer be international politics." (p.2).

Walsh counters the points made by those who suggest realism is becoming obsolete. He refutes three key points - that the spread of democracy, the increase in interdependence and the role of institutions in paving the way towards peace have materially altered international politics.

His point is simple - each of these things is an important component in international politics. While each one has changed materially in recent decades, these changes have not fundamentally altered the system of international politics. "In the absence of external authority," he asserts, "a state cannot be sure that today's friend will not be tomorrow's enemy." He argues that anti-realists believe that a world with nothing but democratic societies will not engage in war. Walsh points out that while democratic societies engage in conflict less often than non-democratic ones, they do engage in conflict. Moreover, as such societies head on the path towards conflict, they become less democratic, to the point that when conflict is engaged, the opposition will not see them as being a democratic society at all. Moreover, Kant's statement that the way to abolish wars is to abolish international politics supports this - even among democratic states, there is politics. There are still conflicts, though they typically take less violent form. This may change some of the ways in which international politics are conducted, but it does not eliminate the need for the conduct of international politics.

To Walsh, the need for international politics remains. Interdependence, he argues, will never be complete. States desire to retain control over key resources that could be denied them in times of war or crisis. There is a certain level of mistrust between states, and that fuels the need for international politics despite increasing interdependence.

Moreover, interdependence also fuels more opportunities before war, because it creates more situations for offense or resentment, especially given that interdependence does not imply an even dependence between nations. That the relationships are often uneven specifically creates the conditions for international politics.

The rise of modern institutions such as the EU and NATO are supposed to smooth the way to peace. Walsh's point is that even an institution such as NATO is beholden to states. "Bureaucracy can help sustain the organization but states determine its fate." Essentially, Walsh views NATO as a tool by which the game of international politics is played rather than an entity capable of superceding the need for international politics. "International institutions are created and maintained by stronger states..." And are thus an extension of those states.