Great Power are defined by their great wars

Idrissi

Milhan                                                        L2 EEI - TD1

« Great Powers Are Defined by Their Great Wars”

• Stephen M. Walt

In this article, Stephen M. Walt paints an analysis of the effects of war on world powers and the evolution of their policy through various phenomena. Going through all the tangents, the geographical location of the state, its subsequent leaders, and the political regime among others.

Mr. Walt focuses his thinking on the events of the Second World War, and the military conflicts of the 21st century for the most part, as well as the actors on the world stage in their inter-state behaviour.

Indeed, the professor of international relations (a key figure of neo-realism) provides us with elements on the evolution of mentalities and relations throughout the century concerning these major states,

We will therefore try to answer the following question:

How collective memory has become the main component of international relations

To answer this, we will first look at how conflicts impact on states.

Secondly, we will look at the Second World War as a turning point in modern international relations.

Then, in the final part, we will see how the school of neo-realism justifies the attitude of international actors and individuals in the face of the threat.

Throughout history, conflict has been the cornerstone of geopolitics and the attitude of state actors in international relations, and wars have been a perpetual pattern throughout human history, teaching lessons to those involved and to the world. However, not all states are equal, and are dependent on their basic conditions, be it geographical or anthropological, through the actions of its various leaders and the policies they draw up, among others, so they can have a major impact on the country's representation and diplomatic relations.

That said, Walt makes an even more essential point than those mentioned above, that nations are primarily dependent on their learning and trauma from past threats, which will govern the collective unconscious both in the microcosm of the state and in the global inter-state approach. Indeed, this is consistent, and leads us to believe that current state policies are in fact the result of transmitted neural patterns from previous years that extend a policy over decades or centuries. All of this, together with factors such as the geographical position of the country in relation to its counterparts or the regime in place.

It is difficult to imagine a reality where a major conflict has little influence on the future. Massacres, genocides and the trivialisation of violence constitute a real psychic trauma that is passed on through generations.

This is why, after a major conflict, the prism of a state is easily predictable, namely to make up for the shortages it faced in the latter, so states put in place a doctrine that aims to avoid confronting past traumas, a vigilance. As John Kerry stated after the Vietnam War, noting the post-traumatic condition of those concerned.

However, this can result in different ways, in the case of Iran and Iraq, countries outside the Western sphere, the conflicts have pushed them to be more assertive towards the outside world and to focus on themselves in order to create a nuclear arsenal at all costs to possess the keys to their protection independently of the world.

As William Faulkner said, "The past is never dead. It is not even past.

Mr. Walt supports his thesis indirectly on human psychoanalysis, epidemics or so-called natural disasters being an integral part of this field, although the interstate conflict remains purely anthropological which gives an impression of potential control for the future.

Let us now turn to the second point, to see how the Second World War reflects the structure of international relations today.

The case of the Second World War is the most telling, as Mr Walt points out. With more than 100 million men involved in the conflict, 62 million of whom died, mostly civilians, in a war that involved all the major players on the world stage, it is no surprise that the deadliest conflict in the history of the previous century still has a considerable impact on international relations today.

Walt's report is neutral, acknowledging the willingness of the United States after the conflict to be the indispensable one, which has resulted in interventions around the globe while carrying a contemporary leadership banner. It is also interesting to note the turn employed by the Axis forces with an imperial will that constitutes following this war the most pacifist nations.

The United-Kingdom in particular defended its policy following the second war, when it was already perceived as an 'out-of-Europe' state not only because of its extra-territorial status, but also with regard to the institutions, the education of england following its fall from the top 5 most powerful nations has resulted in a desire for deep union with the american giant which also has an 'extra-territorial' status in addition to a common language Britain stood on the sidelines; and it declined an invitation to join the six founding nations of the European Economic Community in signing the Treaty of Rome in 1957. despite the shaky integration into the eu shortly afterwards, we can still see that the UK has anchored this desire for rapprochement with the United States at the expense of a strong European bond, which has led to the BREXIT situation by cause and effect. Thus Russia, among others, has reinforced its desire for security, sacrificing much for it, which is the most telling example of a state in turmoil over past conditions through other states. Mr. Walt again supports the fact that states more isolated from Western powers such as Iran, Afghanistan, or Russia tend to develop more animosity and desire for absolute protection than other nations. Moreover, Americans have learned the following lessons: "the importance of credibility, the dangers of isolationism, This consequently gave rise to various gel processes such as the Military-industrial complex developed by Eisenhower in the 1960s as a consequence of this war lesson or the vision of authors such as Fukuyama who asserted that the end of the Cold War marked the ideological victory of democracy and liberalism (the concept of liberal democracy) following the American idea of a universal triumph confirmed after the second world war.

...