2 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Zane's avatar

Absolutely realists believe states can collaborate out of self-interest. A core realist concept, as I'm sure you know, is balance of power. Power balances power. States enter into military alliances, but realists contend these alliances are always contingent. Someone can back out. Leaders are known to use a technique called "lying," which is why, ultimately, it's a "self-help" system.

Mearsheimer and other realists contend there's a group egoism -- that tribalism is built into the constitution of human beings. Tribes do not cooperate because cooperation is good; tribes cooperate in order to compete. Realist Kenneth Waltz opposed the Iraq War; he said it was completely foolish, but noted that a problem with a unipolar world is there's no one around to check a hegemon. He said that a unipolar configuration is inherently unstable because great powers almost inevitably overreach.

As for "abstract" threats -- well, we can see the kind of cooperation forged on climate change. I suppose a model is the Montreal Protocol, but I've recently read the US was reluctant to go along with that until a domestic chemical giant created an alternative to CFCs. States are angling for relative advantages. The same goes for being the first to harness super-intelligent AI.

I agree with Bob that the US should actually adhere to a "rules based order" and help solidify such norms. This is a good strategy if the US is no longer the most dominant country in the world. An alternative point of view could be that the US should work hard to make sure it never has a real peer competitor. It should not try to rely on "rules based order" because international cooperation/alliances are much flimsier than people believe. And that's a difference between realists and liberals. Liberals believe states are capable of "deep" collaboration.

Expand full comment
Yaniv's avatar

If all collaborations were all flimsy and just an instrument for competition the US would have broken into its constituent states after the War of Independence. Some collaborations are sustainable. I'd even grant you that most collaborations are not sustainable over the long run. So what? Our self-interest dictates that we seek out collaborations, building short term and long term ones whenever we find common cause. The real problem is American delusions of grandeur. The idea that we can dictate to the world our way of life is an ideology, not a national interest. Our interest is in stability and trade. Showing respect for the way of life of others can buy us much good will, for so little expense. Why do we always have to win at self-righteousness? Why we can't win at making friends?

Expand full comment