ANARCHY in International Politics
by Group 1 (Rizka Nur Rachmayani ; Kurnia Sari Nastiti; Hendra Lukas)
Anarchy has made a lot of consequences in world politics as Keneth N.Waltz (1979) said in his article “The Consequence of Anarchy: The Anarchic Structure of World Politics”. Two important questions that might exist in our mind about anarchy are (1) whether anarchy is a result of a system or of a disorder; and (2) whether it still exist nowadays or not anymore. But, before we talk about anarchy itself deeper and deeper, it would be important for us to understand about political structure as a whole first as the basic knowledge to conceive the concept of anarchy in world politics then.
Generally, political structure are generated and are affected by the units of the system. The system itself is composed of a structure and of interacting units. The structure is the system wide-component that make it possible to think of the system as a whole, while the interacting units are something that could affect the structure such as the characteristics of units, their behavior, and their interactions. But, we have to separate those two terms in order to get well understanding about the concept. They are separated because by doing so we can figure out the expected effects of the structure on process and of process on structure. And it can only be done if structure and process are distinctly defined. Domestic political structure, for example, be defined by (1) the principle according to which they are organized or ordered; (2) the differentiation of units and specification of their functions; and (3) the distribution of capabilities across units. And these can be applied to international politics as well, but we should notice that there are also any differences between them. Here are some important things we should notice to distinguish those to terms.
First, the ordering principle of the two political structures (domestic political structures and international political structures) are distinctly different, and indeed, contrary to each other.[1] Domestic systems are centralizedhierarchic in which some are entitled to command but others are required to obey. Moreover, domestic political structures have govermental institutions and offices as their concrete counterparts. Meanwhile, international system are decentralized and anarchic. International politics, in contrast, has been called “politics in the absence of government” so that each is equal to the others (none is entitled to command, and none is required to obey). Since international politics are characterized by the absence of government, the order here is individualist in origin, spontaneously generated, and unintended as classical economic theory developed by Adam Smith. and
Second, related to the characteristic of the units, the international political systems (which is characterized by anarchic) entail coordination among a system’s units, and that implies the sameness. Here, states remain like units. But then, structures are defined not by all of the actors that flourish within them but by the major ones. And, as Kindleberger said in Watlz’s article, so long as the major states are the major actors, the structure of international politics is defined in terms of them.[2]
Third, it is important for us to understand about the distribution of capability. Especially in international political system, the units are almost undifferentiated. So,we have to use the assessment of capability in order to distinguish each units.
ANARCHIC STRUCTURES AND BALANCES OF POWER
One of characteristics of anarchy is violence at home and abroad. Generally, a nature of state is a war. Inconsiderable the war constantly occurs, but in anytime and anywhere, the war can break out whether or not to use force. Condition of it called violence which depends of time and place. Among some states at some times, the actual or expected occurrence of violence is low. Within some states at some times, the actual or expected occurrence of violence is high. The existence of more violence or expectation of violence at domestic level couldn’t be taken as an indicator of its being more anarchic than international politics because of the existence in the former of a body with the monopoly of the legitimate use of force. Among men, as among states, anarchy, or the absence of government, is associated with the occurrence of violence (Waltz:39). This is so because if we pursue this line of argument it becomes clear that the larger the number of occurrences of violence, the more anarchic a system is. The government’s monopoly on the use of legitimate force is at least as anarchic as international politics in the sense of increased expectation of violence is an effective government. The legitimate consist of public agents are organized to prevent and to counter the private use of force. They do that and the citizen is defended of them and has a self-help of that.
In a structural system that anarchy, the state must act solely on the basis of their own interests, which means the pursuit of power as much as possible. In an anarchic system, states can not rely on the security and viability of other countries or institutions, but in his own ability (self-help), which collects a variety of ways, especially (but not the only) military to wage war against another country. However, the need for a country to defend itself by strengthening its military power, for others a threat and demanded that other countries do the same, and known as the dilemma of security (security dilemma).
To emphasize the importance of structure as a shaper of behavior state, neorealist distinguish explicitly anarchic character of international politics with domestic politics is hierarchical, which describe two different systems of organizing principles (the principle of reservation systems). Two other characteristics that shape the character of neorealist thought units in the system and distribution capacity in the system units (Waltz, 1979). Characters in the system unit refers to the functions performed by units within the system, namely the state. In the neorealist view, all units have the same functions that ensure survival. However, although all countries have the same function, countries differ in ability, as reflected in the distribution of power that is often not balanced and frequently changed. In summary, as written by Waltz, all countries have a common task, but not the ability to run it. The difference is in capability, not on their function.
Here anarchism articulating social order where no one can oppress or exploit another person, one in which everyone has equal opportunity to achieve material and moral development to the fullest. The traditional definition of anarchism as shown above, must be understood as a starting point, an articulation to respond positively to the community context in which minority communities (who holds the authority in state institutions, religious institutions, educational institutions, economic institutions and other elitist institutions ) has the authority to control various aspects of community life majority.
The vision of anarchy anarchy is the ideal which must then be explained as a possibility and the potential existence of mankind. In further development, through a variety of reinterpretation, we meet a variety of articulation anarchy that emphasizes continuity of the struggle that no limits to broaden the scope of freedom, which is consistently based on: opposition to authority. In general, the anarchist opposition to authority is installed on the opposition to state institutions and religious institutions. But the anarchist opposition to authority is a rejection of human alienation (which is regulated by the government) on potential, ability and desire / will of man. Although basically anarchy against the authority, of course there are exceptions in critical condition when the leadership and representation can be avoided temporarily.
Kenneth Waltz has contributed a tremendous impact in understanding the approach of realism (structural realism / neo-realism) in his book Theory of International Politics (1979). The key assumptions are proposed, among others, the condition of anarchy state relations with other actors, the structure of the system greatly affect the behavior of actors, self-interest forced the country who live in conditions of anarchy choose to help themselves rather than cooperation; state is a rational actor will choose the strategy to maximize profits and minimize losses; important problem most of the conditions of anarchy is a system to survive, and the country to see all the other countries as potential enemies and which can be a threat to national security, causing security dilemmas that affect the foreign policy of each countries.
But, in many explanation about the anarchy, our group deduced that anarchy is “a result of disorder” than “the result of the structure”. Because anarchy has been the characteristic of int’l political system which is “politics in the absence of government”, and lack of order. And we know that anarchy is associated with the occurrence of violence. When the state don’t have an order, the conduction of the world couldn’t be controlled. And the absence of government is associated with the occurrence of violence. State, like humans, they have a moral relationship and present cooperation and avoid conflict, to ensure the necessary cooperation and human rights are guaranteed. The themes developed in the world order does not only issues of war and security, by what the military does not always become an instrument in world politics. This makes the main actor is no longer the country, but also individuals, non-governmental organizations, multinational companies and other non-State actors. In international relations not only inter-governmental relations are preferred, but also studied the relationship between individuals, community groups and private. Relations between people who are more cooperative than the relationship with the government. World with a large number of transnational networks will be more peaceful. Nevertheless, the world have an order, world government, and the other actors, anarchy absolutely still exist nowadays. But, we should notice that anarchy can also be minimalized through cooperation, negotiations,etc.
And we can analyze the concept with the case study about the conflict between North and South Korea regarding the Cheonan Shipin 2010. South Korea’s navy warships, Cheonan, was drowned because it was bombed by North Korea. North Korean submarines had fired a torpedo which makes the ship splitted in two and sank in the Yellow Sea border on 26 March, which killed 46 sailors in South Korea. Because of that, South Korea reported the case to UN and they believed that North Korea attack their ship. This case is an act of anarchy. the accident was the result of a striking attack from North Korea's missiles, so, the situation in there are chaos, destruction, and this death. This accident can create stability in the Asian region will become unstable. this is an indicator that the act of anarchy is not one of important measures like the realist perspective. North Korea had violated the agreement that has been made with the United Nations/ UN Charter, the ceasefire agreement, and agreement of inter-Korean cooperation framework in sunshine policy. North Korea denies responsibility for the incident. Though there is evidence of UN intelligence agency stating that the North Korean guilty. The proof is the finding of the same missile as north korea missile, created by china and Russia. So, UN did investigation and aided by intelligence agencies of several countries to seek evidence and completion of this case .UN is an important international organization to help resolve world peace and have the right to impose punishment on parties that have been interfered world security and violated the agreement that has been made. South Korea and the United States to seek punishment to North Korea in the UN Security Council relating about Cheonan was boomed, but China and Russia, two major allies of North Korea, apparently reluctant to join. Both Russia and China are the owner of a veto. Nevertheless the United Nations while respecting the principles of objectivity and impartiality in distinguishing between right and wrong. But with the evidence, the United Nations as a world government, striving for the best. If seen from this case, we review that is the problem of anarchy that occurred was caused by the absence of government. If there is an order and structure of the hierarchy, this action must be minimized. Because if there is no United Nations, the international countries in the world think about the benefits of their presence among other countries. They continue to struggle to gain power, maintain their existence, and achieve their interests .because they are not regulated in the legitimate of force and order.
Sources :
.Waltz, Keneth N. (1979). Theory of International Politics
Waltz, Keneth N, The Consequences of Anarchy “The Anarchy Structure of World Politics” in Art, Robert Jervis. 2009. International Politics Concept & Contemporary Issue(9th Editions). US : Pearson Education, Inc
www. Asianew.com
http://www.voanews.com/indonesian/news/Seoul-Torpedo-Korea-Utara-Tenggelamkan-Kapal-Cheonan-94203779.html (diakses 26 September 2010)
http://vibizdaily.com/detail/internasional/2010/06/28/pemimpin_g8_kecam_tenggelamnya_kapal_cheonan ((diakses 26 September 2010)
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar