A Fistful of Anarchy

When reading about foreign affairs, it is essential to note that the word “anarchy” in international politics describes the current world political order: there is no higher authority than the state government. It would be incorrect to accept the meaning of the word “anarchy” in the international context as synonymous to “chaos.” It merely defines the condition where there is a lack of authority above the state level.

This definition of the word within the field of international studies is radically different from the domestic-political understanding of the exact same word. In that much more widely known context, it describes a coherent political philosophy. You can read about anarchy as it relates to domestic politics here. Unfortunately, this confusing aspect of international politics occurs with the word “liberal” as well, but not so much for the word “realism.”

That said, I’ll get to the point: how should the United States conduct itself on the anarchic international scene? The following is a political philosophy of international politics, realism.

That everlasting question cannot be answered before reiterating the purpose of the democratic government. Who is it there for?

The democratic government (roughly) exists to protect its citizens from harm and ensure that they all enjoy the preconditions necessary in order to live satisfactory lives. To these ends, the democratic government is supposed to serve its citizens and its citizens alone. Any governmental action abroad must reflect this existential mission. Why would the state make decisions that are in the best interests of foreign people over the interests of its citizens?

After reiterating the reason why a democratic government exists, the next step is to understand how that government can achieve its mission in an anarchic world political order.

The solution is clear: power. When there is no rule-of-law the only important possession is raw power. Simply put, the stronger you are, the safer you will be. Conversely, the weaker you are, the more vulnerable you will be. The democratic government would not be able to protect its citizens from harm and ensure prosperity for them if it is constantly threatened by a foreign state. Thus, in a world that has no definitive international police, judge, or senate, power is the closest thing to safety.

Since power is a nation’s best (only?) hope to ensure that its citizens are protected from the outside world, the state must do all it can to maximize its power vis-à-vis its rivals. Power can take on many forms-most notably military or economic-but the truth of the matter remains that if a state is powerful enough; it will not be easily taken advantage of by other international actors. Therefore, such security then is obviously in the best interests of the state’s citizens.

If only we could live in a world where nations respect some international rule-of-law without exception. Yet the reality is clear, in an atmosphere of anarchy, power is the only thing that commands. A state must maximize its power relative to its rivals in the world in order to prosper. All other objectives concerning a democratic government’s international actions, including humanitarian concerns, must be subjugated to this essential need.

Here is the most classic real-world example:

During the Cold War, the only thing that stopped the USSR from waging war on the US was the power of the American military and economy. It wasn’t the UN and it certainly wasn’t morality. It was that the US had nuclear weapons, aircraft, ships, tanks and factories that would go to use if attacked. All of the foreign policies of nations within this period reflected this state of affairs.

This is why international politics has a different set of rules than any other political realm. It has no room for morality, no room for good for Good’s sake, no room for trust.

That said, who does international realism make tomorrow better than today for?