Conclusions

The concepts of economic interdependence, balance of power and national security have been analyzed in order to highlight the different approaches to them. As far as the first concept is concerned, there are two points which have to be mentioned. First, when someone refers to economic interdependence among states, he actually means asymmetric interdependence. That is because trading goods and capital, regardless of the sector they are intended to be used in, can be found either from other partners, since the world is dominated by world trade, or can be substituted by similar products.

The concept of “interdependence” mainly concerns situations of mutual dependence in vital products. For example, if there is a country which is the only one which produces A but lacks B and another country which is the only who produces B but lacks A and these products are vital for the states’ survival, it can be argued in this case that there is pure interdependence between the two countries. This, should not be confused with

“dependence” which occurs when one state needs vital products which are produced

58 only by another state and the latter does not necessarily need the former’s products in order to survive, nor with “asymmetric interdependence” which occurs when, according to Waltz, two states are not mutually dependent, however they both affect each other, meaning that there is either a high or low cost in case of disruption.

Second, as a consequence of the first point, from a Realist perspective, the existence of asymmetric economic interdependence in international politics cannot reduce the struggle for power among states, which is vital for their survival. Given that all states are unequal, regarding their levels of power, more cooperation and interdependence means less control and influence especially for the weaker side. According to Waltz (1979), suspiciousness among states does not allow them to cooperate on a large scale because they fear that the absolute gains from cooperation will lead to the development of the other’s capabilities and, therefore, to a rise in its power and the extension of its influence.

Regarding the balance of power, from a Realist perspective, a state can either deter aggression from another state or eliminate the lack of power in relation to another state.

Therefore, the balance of power is vital for the system’s stability because it deters world domination by one power. In addition, the balance of power can be achieved from a state-balancer or by buck-passing from states which do not want to get involved in war or similar situations. Moreover, another method of balance is nuclear deterrence. Given of the sheer scale of the disaster they can cause, nuclear weapons deter an escalation of a crisis which could lead to war. However, as Mearsheimer (1991) mentions, this does not provide security because land forces remain the most significant factor of a state’s power.

At this point, it is important to mention that the balance of power does not necessarily concern only large-scale issues. All of its functions which have been mentioned concern great powers and the international system before war. Nevertheless, someone should take into account the role of the balance of power in situations of disputed areas during interstate conflict and how it is promoted, even between nuclear powers, such as India and Pakistan, in order for the threatened state to maintain its national security.

Furthermore, the concept of security is complicated because international relations are comprised of theories which perceive reality from different perspectives such as Realism and Liberalism, or which consider that there is no external objective reality but that reality is determined by how man views it, such as the theory of Constructivism,

59 for example. Consequently, the definition of security presupposes a combination of an assumption about the status quo as well as the causes which led to that situation. For example, acceptance of anarchy in the international system presupposes the existence of states as dominant actors which promote their interests.

In addition, security is a concept which exists in all aspects of human activity. For example there is individual security, social security, cultural security, political security, national security and international security. Each sector is aimed at different sets with different features and how one ranks their importance varies depending on how one perceives reality. For the Realist perspective, national security is of high significance because it maintains a state’s conditions for survival. In each case, regardless of the differences in the forms of security, there is one common aspect which imbues and utterly determines the meaning of the concept, and that is fear of change in the status quo for the worse. This fear exists innately in the individual, in society, in political regimes, in the state and in the international system, as a survival impulse.

In the case of state and national security, the impact of any change directly affects most of the state’s internal structures, either in the short or long term. Therefore, anything which can change a state’s capabilities for maintaining its power and influence for the worse can be considered to be a matter of national security.

60