On Kenneth Waltz's ‘Man, the State and War’

Many primers in the study of international politics have been suggesting that reading and understanding the analysis of Kenneth Waltz’s book Man, the State and war as some kind of prerequisite for a good grounding on further studies in this discipline and subsequently I have decided to spend my time on reading it. Without doubt that was a good start.

The author for the purpose of analysis has picked up three independent components one more or less states that Man is a sole reason for all that is happening or to go bit further it is human’s mental makeup that leads to a decision to go for war for a variety of reasons, which is purely a psychological view. And another view (image) is how human tendencies are conditioned through institutions. Third image is when there are no binding rules with transactions between independent nation states, to prove one’s point one decides to go for war.

The central elements of this whole analysis is Individual, Institution and the vacuum of authority in relation between independent nation states i.e., Anarchy.

On the face of it, it is convincing to hear that neither man nor institution is the reason for war but the anarchic nature of international relations as a fundamental reason for war.

Though I do not intend to pass a judgment. I have always believed that without a reformation of an individual mind, reformation of a society is impossible and we cannot help it if it sounds more psychological. All incorrect judgments and vanity are because of man’s inherent mental impulses. If Hitler wanted to annex the whole Europe it was his individual decision rather than of all Germans. So the example of Hitler and Chamberlain is ubiquitous. In the context of South Asia, Chamberlain moment for India was when Nehru an ideologically indoctrinated prime minister of India said that Indians and Chinese are brothers.

Just Chamberlain appealed Hitler, Nehru too appealed China and Zhou and went on to say that India has got no business in Tibet and relinquished a seat in Security Council, all this was taken as a cue of weakness which emboldened China to attack India. Again two minds involved here, Chinese and Indian leadership both can be called as causes.As institutions and social conditions are the creation of man, with man corrected all will be perfected.

I have a slight disagreement with the way anarchy is portrayed. It has two conditions/assumptions one is there will be no government to govern and the other important condition is there should be no wicked men in society. If society has no single wicked man then there is no need for government and institutions not to mention the nation state.

Ken eventually deduced that anarchical nature of International relations is the sole reason of war, that conclusion goes against the very definition of Anarchy. If there is a condition of anarchy in operation then there will be no wars, no suicide bombing, and no violence.

If we ever wanted to hold an entity responsible for causing war it is the human mind. If we are looking for solutions to condition human mind then institutions are needed. Because society consists of both good and bad men and they will never stop fighting each other.