This article focuses on the similarities between the nuclear threat during the Cold War from the Soviets and the current threat of proliferation to terrorists. The similarities they discuss are almost identical; fear of potential agents inside the US, concern over proliferation into the US trough porous borders, and increased security to prevent attacks are some of them. However, the main difference now is that the threat is coming from non-state actors, which directly challenges realist theory.
Nothing embodies realist theory more than the Cold War. Two hegemons battling to become the most powerful state in the world, each looking out for their own interests, and increasing their security (and, at the same time, decreasing the security of the other player) is the definition of realist. Now, however, even though many of the same aspects of security threats are the same, it is coming from non-state actors. Realist theory only applies to state actors, not individuals.
The issue of terrorism and terrorists poses a problem to realist theory credibility. The argument can be made that this theory lost its relevance after the Cold War. However, it is interesting to entertain the thought that terrorists can be thought of as a "state." Don't they, in most cases, behave as a state in realist theory behaves? Groups like al-Qaeda look after their own interests and seek to increase their global dominance. Does thinking of terrorist groups as "borderless states" continue realist theory's relevance?
Also, this post is in response to the previous week's question of critical theory in IR. It's just late.
ReplyDelete