International relations for (neorealistic) dummies

International relations seem to be pretty clear on paper and on theory. However, they are not. Neorealism gives (a kind of) a logical explanation why.

Anarchy is a key word to describing international relations generally. It is not meant to stand for chaos, but for the lack of a superior authority which has the legislative, judicative and executive prevalence. It is a liberal international order where each state actor basically pursuits two goals – self preservation and power maximization. Neorealists would love to live in such a peaceful and fair system (which it also seems to be), nevertheless the primary aspect of this structure is left disregarded and underestimated: how are these priorities suppose to be secured?

The paradox is that the solution is the problem itself: what secures the safety of one state, threatens the being of another one and vice versa. And it is hardly possible to think of this paradox as none existing in the international system even if the topic is being analyzed from a constructivist, institutionalistic or postmodern point of view. It is barely about the quantity of the military or diplomacy strength of a country. What makes one dominant and another one dominated is the quality and knowledge of how to use it, such as its relations to others. “Fear is a weapon of mass destruction” as Faithless state in one of their most popular tracks. And this is the crucial point where all current international affairs need to be explained a bit simpler.

Broadly speaking, the paradox develops like this: the resources which a state utilizes in order to secure their self preservation and power lead to the insecurity of other state actor(s). So the second one(s) make the next move by attempting to obtain its (their) own security. Logically, this leads to another move by the first state etc.

So, if you´ve wondered why Iran and North Korea (also India in the past) are so extraordinary important to the USA, there is the answer: they´re not. But the context of the international system throws the spotlight on their actions (that includes the historical, diplomatic and political system aspects of the topic). The same weapon resources wouldn´t mean anything if they belonged to the UK at this moment. Yes, the different context did lead to Señor Kennedy, Cuba no esta sola! and that is exactly essence of the topic.

The bottom line is that all secondary and further actions from states are egoistic reactions regarding only the self. I´m not saying it with a negative note, but asking: when does the healthy egoism turn anarchy into chaos?