WALTZ’S RESPONSE
In response to the some of the criticisms leveled against his theory, Waltz in his last article structural realism after the cold war, he defends his theory by concluding that Democracies according to Kantian philosophy do not wage war against each other, and then shows empirically that, in fact, they really do. He provides examples of democracies of various types that fought each other in World War I, and also the US crusade against the Latin American, democratically elected governments in the Dominican Republic and Chile in the last century. Waltz paints the picture that democracies can attack each other at will just as they will attack non-democracies.
He also posits that "interdependence promotes war as well as peace," …show more content…
He asks why NATO is still around long after the demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The answer according to him is because the United State have the need to organize it into a regional security to serve its interest at large even though they have been involved in a few peacekeeping operations of note is the peacekeeping in the Balkans during the 1990s. Aside guaranteeing the security of member states, NATO has expanded to the East, adopting former Soviet allies. Waltz reemphasize realists' underlining point that institutions serve at the behest of states or in other words they "serve primarily national interest rather than international …show more content…
In a world where the interest of states are at rear-end, survival and security still stand as the major goal of international politics. The role of institutions and other non-states actors cannot be downplayed, the U.N has at least been able to mediate successfully between countries that were at loggerheads, maritime disputes and other forms of disputes are settled by the International Court of Justice. The world Trade Organization has facilitated trade among countries ensuring increasing interdependence among states. There is, however, the persistence of several interstate conflicts. India and Pakistan are still at war, the tension between the United States and North Korea, Nuclear proliferation among several others. With American power still unchecked and unbalanced despite Waltz telling us that this will change in no time, we cannot ignore the risks they still pose to the rest of the world which cannot be explained in realist terms. Several other occurrences goes to underscore the relevance of structural realism not relegating the importance of some other theories in explaining certain occurrences to the background. For instance the peaceful end of the Cold War can be explained with deterrent theories that have withstood the test of time since the advent of nuclear weapons even though structural realism and Waltz do recognize that nuclear weaponry is an important tool for
In response to the some of the criticisms leveled against his theory, Waltz in his last article structural realism after the cold war, he defends his theory by concluding that Democracies according to Kantian philosophy do not wage war against each other, and then shows empirically that, in fact, they really do. He provides examples of democracies of various types that fought each other in World War I, and also the US crusade against the Latin American, democratically elected governments in the Dominican Republic and Chile in the last century. Waltz paints the picture that democracies can attack each other at will just as they will attack non-democracies.
He also posits that "interdependence promotes war as well as peace," …show more content…
He asks why NATO is still around long after the demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The answer according to him is because the United State have the need to organize it into a regional security to serve its interest at large even though they have been involved in a few peacekeeping operations of note is the peacekeeping in the Balkans during the 1990s. Aside guaranteeing the security of member states, NATO has expanded to the East, adopting former Soviet allies. Waltz reemphasize realists' underlining point that institutions serve at the behest of states or in other words they "serve primarily national interest rather than international …show more content…
In a world where the interest of states are at rear-end, survival and security still stand as the major goal of international politics. The role of institutions and other non-states actors cannot be downplayed, the U.N has at least been able to mediate successfully between countries that were at loggerheads, maritime disputes and other forms of disputes are settled by the International Court of Justice. The world Trade Organization has facilitated trade among countries ensuring increasing interdependence among states. There is, however, the persistence of several interstate conflicts. India and Pakistan are still at war, the tension between the United States and North Korea, Nuclear proliferation among several others. With American power still unchecked and unbalanced despite Waltz telling us that this will change in no time, we cannot ignore the risks they still pose to the rest of the world which cannot be explained in realist terms. Several other occurrences goes to underscore the relevance of structural realism not relegating the importance of some other theories in explaining certain occurrences to the background. For instance the peaceful end of the Cold War can be explained with deterrent theories that have withstood the test of time since the advent of nuclear weapons even though structural realism and Waltz do recognize that nuclear weaponry is an important tool for