2 Theoretical Framework 2.1 Neoclassical Realism and Foreign Policy Analysis

Abstract

The theoretical framework follows a neoclassical realist approach that treats power as the central variable in the analysis of cross-strait relations and Taiwan's policy toward China in IGOs. The realist view of cross-strait relations in IGOs reflects the basic assumption of this book that IGOs seem unlikely to encourage cooperation between Taiwan and China since power politics and sovereignty disputes have clearly prevailed over functional considerations. Cross-strait rela-tions in international organizations have always been a matter of realpolitik and high politics. Thus, the key to understanding the triangular relationship between Taiwan, China and IGOs is to be found in the distribution of power and in the general state of the bilateral political relationship between Taiwan and China. Realism is first and foremost a philosophical world view that regards the power struggle among groups as a constant feature of international politics and is pessimistic about the prospects of world peace. It has a long tradition, and in-cludes works by Thucydides, Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. While there are numerous divisions in the realist paradigm, at least four realist core assumptions shared by all realists can be identified (Walt 2002; Schweller and Priess 1997). First, individuals are members of groups and act in groups. Be-cause groups are usually organized in the form of nation-states, states are regard-ed as the most important actors in international politics. Second, anarchy is the main characteristic of the international system. In contrast to inner state systems, the absence of a central authority creates an international self-help system, in which states are responsible for their own security. Third, power is the key vari-able in realist theory and is placed at the center of all political life. States need power in order to pursue their interests, their most fundamental goal being their survival and security in the anarchical international system. Fourth, the nature of international politics is essentially conflictual and characterized by struggle for power among groups. There are two outstanding realist theories: classical or traditional realism (Morgenthau 1961, Carr 1949; Herz 1951) and structural realism or neo-realism (Waltz 1979, Mearsheimer 2001). Classical realism, led by Hans J. Morgenthau, emerged shortly after World War II and emphasized the will to power as an inte-B. A. Lindemann, Cross-Strait Relations and International Organizations, Ostasien im 21. Jahrhundert, DOI 10.1007/978-3-658-05527-1_2, © Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2014 34 2 Theoretical Framework gral part of human nature. Classical realists put forward a set of principles on the nature of international politics and included the individual level, domestic poli-tics and the international system in their analysis. Interests defined in terms of power were regarded as central to a state's foreign policy that can vary greatly, however, and has to be seen in a historical, political and cultural context. Neo-realism, introduced by Kenneth N. Waltz (1979), built on many of the assump-tions of classical realism and transformed them into a theory of international politics. The main difference between classical realism and neo-realism is the different emphasis placed on the structure of the international system. While Morgenthau's main work " Politics Among Nations " introduced a realist ap-proach to international politics that jumped between different levels of analysis, Waltz located his extremely parsimonious " Theory of International Politics " solely at the systemic level. The ultimate objective of Waltz's theory is to ex-plain patterns and outcomes of international behavior such as the polarity, bal-ance of power and alliance behavior in the international system. In contrast to the classical realists, Waltz did not locate the source of conflict primarily in human nature and power-seeking individuals, but pointed to the anarchic structure of the international system to explain the recurrence of conflicts. According to Waltz, the international system is composed of a structure and units (states). Due to the anarchic nature of the international system and the lack of a central authority, states are permanently confronted with insecurity, because " many of the means by which a state tries to increase its security decrease the security of others " (Jervis 1978: 169). States are constantly confronted with this so-called security dilemma, because they can never be sure about the intentions of other states. Because " today's friend may be tomorrow's enemy in war " (Grieco 1990: 29), states always have to perceive other states as potential threats and find themselves in a permanent state of security competition. To ensure their own survival, states often tend to increase their power, the central variable in realist theory, and are primarily interested in their relative power position in the international system vis-à-vis the other states. Thus, in realist theory, the distri-bution of relative power and material capabilities in the international system are the key factors in explaining international outcomes. For the purpose of theory-building, Waltz conceptualized states as unitary actors that differ in their material capabilities. Neo-realists agree with the im-portance of domestic variables in a state's foreign policy, but argue that reality needs to be simplified in order to provide a universal theory of international politics and therefore treat states as black boxes. Waltz (1979: 71-72) explained that international politics focusing on the system and foreign policy include dif-ferent levels of analysis and pointed out that a theory of international politics