Man, the State, and War Kenneth N.

Waltz Columbia University Press, 1954; Pages: 263 Review 2001 Branislav L. Slantchev Argues that the international system provides the most convincing theoretical ex planation as a source of international conflict compared to human nature and the organization of states. See Gourevitch for a discussion of the impact of the sy stem on the internal organization of states - the second image reversed. First Image: Human Behavior Wars result from selfishness, from misdirected aggressive impulses, from stupidi ty. If these are the primary causes, the elimination of war must come through up lifting and enlightening men (p.16). For pessimists, peace is at once a goal and a utopian dream, while optimists tak e seriously the proposition to reform the individual. Pessimists (Niebuhr, Morge nthau) have countered the theory of politics built on an optimistic definition o f man but also expose the important error of exaggerating the causal importance of human nature. Since this nature is very complex, it can justify any hypothesi s we may entertain. If men can be made good, then one must discover how to alter human nature. This expectation is often buried under the conviction that indivi dual behavior is determined more by religious and spiritual inspiration rather t han material circumstance. If man's evil qualities lead to wars, then one must w orry about ways to repress them or compensate for them. Control rather than exho rtation is needed, tends to assume a fixed human nature, which shifts the focus away from it, toward social and political institutions that can be changed (p.41 ). Not every contribution the behavioral scientist can make has been made before an d found wanting, but rather, the proffered contributions of many of them have be en rendered ineffective by a failure to comprehend the significance of the polit ical framework of international action. Social and psychological realism has pro duced political utopianism (p.77). Second Image: Internal Structure of States The internal organization of states is the key to understanding war and peace. R emoving the defects of states would establish the basis for peace. Definition of a ``good'' state: (a) Marx - according to the means of production, (b) Kant - a ccording to abstract principles of right, (c) Wilson - according to national sel f-determination and democracy. Hobbes, Mill, Adam Smith. The use of internal defects to explain external acts of a state can take many fo rms: (i) type of government generally bad - deprivations imposed by despots upon their subjects produce tensions that find their expression in foreign adventure ; (ii) defects in governments not inherently bad - restrictions placed on the st ate in order to protect the rights of its citizens interfere with executing fore ign policy; and (iii) geographic or economic deprivations - state has not attain ed its ``natural'' frontiers, or ``deprived'' countries undertake war to urge th e satisfied ones to make the necessary compensatory adjustments (p.83). Liberal thought has moved from reliance upon improvement within separate states to acceptance of the need for organization among them. Rigorous application of t his logic leads to asking to what extent organized force must be applied in orde r to secure the desired peaceful world. Arguing for a world government and settl ing for balance of power as an unhappy alternative reveals the limits of the sec ond image analysis. Even though bad states may lead to war, the obverse that goo d states mean peace is doubtful. Just like societies they live in make men, the international environment makes states (p.122). Third Image: International Anarchy With many sovereign states, with no system of law enforceable among them, with e ach state judging its grievances and ambitions according to the dictates of its

own reason or desire - conflict, sometimes leading to war, is bound to occur. To achieve a favorable outcome from such a conflict, a state has to rely on its ow n devices, the relative efficiency of which must be its constant concern (p.159) . Machiavelli, Rousseau, Thucydides, Clausewitz. In anarchy, there is no automatic harmony. Because some countries may be willing to use force to achieve their ends, and because there is no authority to preven t them from doing so, even peacefully inclined states must arms themselves. Good ness and evil, agreement and disagreement, may or may not lead to war. War occur s because there is nothing to prevent it: there is no automatic adjustment of in terests among states and there is a constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force (p.188). A balance of power may exist because some countries consciously make it the end of their policies, or it may exist because of the quasi-autonomous reactions of some states to the drive for ascendancy of others. It is not so much imposed by statesmen on events as it is imposed by events on statesmen (p.209). Conclusion The third image describes the framework of world politics, but without the first and the second images there can be no knowledge of the forces that determine po licy; the first and second images describe the forces in world politics, but wit hout the third image it is impossible to assess their importance or predict thei r results (p.238).