Man, the State and War

Introduction

In 1959, Kenneth N. Waltz published "Man, the State and War," a groundbreaking book that explores the fundamental question: Why do humans engage in war? This work remains highly relevant today, as conflicts continue to plague various parts of the world. Waltz's approach to understanding the origins of war is both comprehensive and thought-provoking, offering valuable insights for anyone interested in international relations, political science, or the pursuit of peace.

The book examines the ideas of prominent thinkers throughout history and categorizes them into three distinct "images" or levels of analysis:

1. The nature of human beings (the first image)
2. The internal structure of states (the second image)
3. The anarchic structure of international relations (the third image)

By exploring these three images, Waltz seeks to determine which one, if any, best explains why humans go to war. His conclusion is that while the third image – the anarchic structure of international relations – is the key determiner, a complete understanding of war requires consideration of all three images.

The First Image: Human Nature as the Root Cause of War

Optimists vs. Pessimists

The first-image thinkers believe that human nature is the primary cause of war. However, they are divided into two camps: optimists and pessimists.

Optimists: Human Nature is Malleable

Optimists argue that human nature can be improved through education and social conditioning. They believe that by changing human nature, we can eliminate war. This perspective has evolved over time:

1. Historical optimists relied on religious and moral appeals to change human behavior.
2. Modern optimists, particularly behavioral scientists, focus on studying human behavior to develop educational methods and social structures that can reduce aggression and violence.

For example:

• During World War I, English psychologist J.T. MacCurdy suggested that preventive psychiatry could potentially help prevent war.
• Anthropologist Margaret Mead proposed studying peaceful "primitive" tribes to learn how to avoid conflict in modern societies.

Pessimists: Human Nature is Unchangeable

In contrast, pessimists view human nature as fundamentally flawed and unchangeable. They argue that only external control can prevent humans from starting wars and killing each other. Notable pessimists include:

• Augustine of Hippo: He claimed that without government, humans would kill each other until extinction.
• Baruch Spinoza: The Dutch philosopher believed that humans are driven by passions rather than reason, necessitating ways to repress and compensate for our volatile emotions.

Limitations of the First Image

While the first image offers valuable insights, it has several limitations:

1. It fails to explain why there are alternating periods of war and peace despite the consistency of human nature.
2. The optimists' view is impractical, as it would require a global, simultaneous re-education of humanity – an impossible task.
3. The various proposed paths to world order (conquest, religious brotherhood, world federalism) all assume that a single creed or philosophy can dominate the world, ignoring the reality of diverse ideologies.
4. The first image underestimates the importance of political frameworks in encouraging or discouraging aggressive behavior.

Despite these limitations, understanding human nature remains crucial for recognizing the imperfections in all social and political systems and developing strategies to address them.

The Second Image: Internal State Structure as the Cause of War

Second-image thinkers believe that the internal structure of states is the primary cause of war. They argue that if the right state structure were implemented worldwide, it would guarantee peace. However, like the first-image thinkers, they are divided into two main groups: liberals and socialists.

Liberal Thinkers: Free Markets and Decentralization

Liberal thinkers emphasize the benefits of free-trade markets, decentralization, and limited government regulation in preventing conflict and fulfilling individual needs. Key ideas include:

1. Adam Smith's concept of the "invisible hand": The market's impersonal forces create social harmony and public welfare better than government regulation.
2. Free trade between states discourages war by intertwining their economic interests.
3. States with interconnected economies have more to lose by going to war than by maintaining peace.

Socialist Thinkers: Class Struggle and Capitalism

Socialist thinkers, such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, argue that the free market inevitably leads to internal state conflicts and external wars. Their key points include:

1. The capitalist system produces a class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
2. Internal class struggles manifest externally as wars between states.
3. Capitalist state leaders pursue their own class interests (bourgeoisie) while ignoring the proletariat's desire for peace.
4. Governments use wars as pretexts to raise taxes and increase control over the proletariat.

Socialists conclude that abolishing capitalist states and establishing global socialism would eliminate war.

Challenges to Liberal Thinking

John Stuart Mill, a prominent liberal thinker, believed that individual liberty would lead to improved states and, ultimately, peace. However, several challenges arise from this perspective:

1. Liberal states sometimes go to war, disproving the assumption that peace is always in everyone's interest.
2. Individual desires for peace are not always represented in government actions.
3. The dilemma of intervention: Should liberal states intervene in anti-democratic states to protect democracy and peace?

This dilemma led to two schools of thought among liberals:

1. Interventionists (e.g., Mazzini): Argue that intervention is necessary when democracy is in danger.
2. Non-interventionists: Believe that imposing state structures through war is counterproductive and that there's no international agreement on what constitutes an ideal state.

The Failure of Socialist International Solidarity

The socialist approach to creating international solidarity and preventing war faced significant challenges:

1. The Second International, an organization of socialist parties formed in 1889, failed to preserve peace during World War I.
2. Individual socialist parties often prioritized their national interests over international solidarity.
3. A pre-war peace resolution allowed socialists to participate in defensive wars, but every state considered World War I a defensive war.
4. By 1915, socialists had to acknowledge that their belief in worldwide solidarity was unrealistic.

The socialist thinkers, like the liberals, overestimated the power of rationality in overcoming national differences and interests.

The Third Image: Anarchy in International Relations

Third-image thinkers argue that the international scene is characterized by lawless anarchy, similar to a country without a police force. This perspective draws on the ideas of philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Hobbes: States as Individuals in the State of Nature

Hobbes viewed sovereign states as "individuals in the state of nature," meaning they are not controlled by law, a higher institution of power, or a common superior. This lack of overarching authority inevitably leads to violence and conflict.

Key differences between individuals and states:

1. Individuals must cooperate to survive, while states are more independent.
2. States have greater capacity for self-sufficiency than individuals.

Rousseau: The Stag Hunt Analogy

Rousseau deepened this argument by comparing state conflict to interpersonal conflict. He used the "Stag Hunt" analogy to illustrate why states don't cooperate:

Five hungry men agree to hunt a stag together, as it requires cooperation and provides enough food for all. During the hunt, one man sees a hare and decides to pursue it alone, abandoning the group effort. This action jeopardizes the hunt for everyone else but satisfies the individual's immediate needs.

This analogy demonstrates how states prioritize their particular interests over collective goals, leading to conflict and mistrust in the international system.

International Relations as a Strategic Game

Third-image thinkers view international relations as a strategic game without written rules:

1. Each state's freedom of choice is limited by the actions of all others.
2. States' strategies depend on the actions of other states.
3. The most aggressive states (e.g., "the Hitlers of the world") often determine the overall strategy that peace-seeking states must adopt.

This dynamic creates a perpetual state of tension and potential conflict in the international arena.

The Challenges of Creating a World Government

While third-image thinkers dream of establishing a world government to maintain order and prevent war, they acknowledge several significant challenges:

1. Enforcement problem: A world government would need to use force against law-breaking states, potentially leading to a cycle of violence and revenge.
2. Leadership concerns: There's no guarantee that world government leaders would always act in the general interest of member states.
3. Corruption risk: Powerful states could potentially influence or corrupt the world government's executive branch.

Despite these challenges, third-image thinkers emphasize the importance of building an international political framework with a binding judicial system to create as much order as possible in the anarchic international system.

Synthesis: The Interplay of the Three Images

Waltz argues that a comprehensive understanding of war requires consideration of all three images. Each image provides valuable insights, but none alone can fully explain the occurrence of war.

The First Image: Human Nature

While human nature plays a role in conflict, it cannot solely explain war:

1. It fails to account for periods of peace.
2. It overlooks the influence of political structures on human behavior.
3. It doesn't explain why some societies are more prone to war than others.

However, understanding human nature remains crucial for developing effective political systems and strategies to mitigate conflict.

The Second Image: Internal State Structure

The internal structure of states influences their propensity for war, but it's not the sole determinant:

1. Both democratic and authoritarian states have engaged in wars.
2. Economic systems (capitalist or socialist) don't guarantee peace.
3. Internal reforms alone cannot eliminate the anarchic nature of the international system.

Nonetheless, promoting stable and just internal state structures can contribute to reducing the likelihood of war.

The Third Image: International Anarchy

The anarchic structure of the international system is the most significant factor in explaining war:

1. It creates a constant state of insecurity and mistrust among states.
2. It encourages states to prioritize their own interests over collective goals.
3. It makes cooperation difficult and conflict more likely.

However, the third image alone cannot explain why some states choose war while others pursue peaceful solutions in similar circumstances.

Implications and Possible Solutions

Based on Waltz's analysis, several implications and potential solutions emerge:

1. Multi-level approach: Addressing the causes of war requires action at all three levels – individual, state, and international.

2. Education and cultural exchange: While not a complete solution, promoting understanding and empathy between cultures can help reduce conflict.

3. Strengthening international institutions: Developing more robust international organizations and legal frameworks can help mitigate the effects of anarchy in the international system.

4. Promoting economic interdependence: Encouraging trade and economic cooperation between states can increase the costs of war and promote peaceful relations.

5. Conflict resolution mechanisms: Establishing and strengthening international arbitration and mediation processes can provide alternatives to war.

6. Arms control and disarmament: Reducing the global stockpile of weapons, especially nuclear arms, can decrease the likelihood and potential devastation of wars.

7. Addressing root causes: Tackling issues like poverty, inequality, and resource scarcity can help reduce the motivations for conflict.

8. Balancing power: Maintaining a balance of power in the international system can help prevent the emergence of hegemonic states that might be more prone to aggression.

Conclusion

Kenneth Waltz's "Man, the State and War" provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the complex causes of war. By examining the three images – human nature, internal state structure, and international anarchy – Waltz demonstrates that war cannot be explained by any single factor alone.

The book's enduring relevance lies in its ability to synthesize various perspectives on war and peace, offering a nuanced view of international relations. It challenges readers to consider the interplay between individual behavior, state policies, and the broader international system when analyzing conflicts and seeking solutions.

While Waltz doesn't provide a definitive answer to preventing war, his work offers valuable insights for policymakers, scholars, and anyone interested in promoting peace. By recognizing the multi-faceted nature of conflict, we can develop more effective strategies for reducing the likelihood of war and fostering international cooperation.

As we continue to face global challenges and conflicts in the 21st century, the ideas presented in "Man, the State and War" remain crucial for understanding and addressing the complex dynamics of international relations. By considering all three images and their interactions, we can work towards creating a more peaceful and stable world order.