Pixies Place Forums - True or False

Even those who argue that morality should play a large role in statecraft acknowledge that international politics is not like domestic politics. In the latter, there is government; in the former, there is none. As a consequence, no agency exists above the individual states with authority and power to make laws and settle disputes. States can make commitments and treaties, but no sovereign power ensures compliance and punishes deviations. This the absence of a supreme power-is what is meant by the anarchic environment of international polities. Anarchy is therefore said to constitute a state of war: when all else fails, force is the ultima ratio--the final and legitimate arbiter of disputes among states.
The state of war does not mean that every nation is constantly at the brink of war or actually at war with other nations. though, do feel threatened by some states at some time, and every state has experienced periods of intense insecurity. No two contiguous states, moreover, have had a history of close, friendly relations uninterrupted by severe tension if not outright war. Because a nation cannot look to a supreme body to enforce laws, nor count on other nations for constant aid and support, it must rely on its own efforts, particularly for defense against attack. Coexistence in an anarchic environment thus requires self-help. The psychological outlook that self-help breeds is best described by a saying common among British statesmen since Palmerston: "Great Britain has no permanent enemies or permanent friends, she has only permanent interests."
Although states must provide the wherewithal to achieve their own ends, they do not always reach their foreign policy goals. the means available, meager. The goals may be attainable; the means selected, inappropriate. But even if the goals are realistic and the means both available and appropriate, a state can be frustrated in pursuit of its ends. The reason is simple, but fundamental to an understanding of international polities: what one state does will inevitably impinge on some other states--on some beneficially, but on others adversely. What one state desires another may covet. What one thinks its just due another may find threatening. Steps that a state takes to achieve its goals may be rendered useless by the counter steps others take. No state, therefore, can afford to disregard the effects its actions will have on other nations' behavior. In this sense state behavior is contingent: what one state does is dependent in part upon what others do. Mutual dependence means that each must take the others into account.
Mutual dependence affects nothing more powerfully than it does security-the measures states take to protect their territory.Like other foreign-policy goals, the security of one state is contingent upon the behavior of other states. Herein lies the security dilemma to which each state is subject: In its efforts to preserve or enhance its own security, one state can take measures that decrease the security of other states and cause them to take countermeasures that neutralize the actions of the first state and that may even menace it. The first state may feel impelled to take additional actions that will provoke additional countermeasures.., and so forth., The security dilemma means that an action-reaction spiral can occur between two states or among several of them so that each is forced to spend ever larger sums on arms and be no more secure than before. All will run faster merely to stay where they were.