John Mearsheimer’s book, a tragedy of great power politics, depicts a theory known as offensive realism, an alternative to defensive realism, which was developed by Kenneth Waltz and Hans Morgenthau’s classical realism. Offensive realism explains about the relationship of theposition, power and national interests of great nations (Measheimer, 2003). Mearsheimer treats great powers as a thought of the past years. Many nations today are full of conflicts and security competition. This has led to wars between nations. Based on the account of Mearsheimer’s causes of war, and assuming that I come from a colonists’ race, which need to be organized into nation states, but do not care how many, or where they are placed, this paper explains how I would divide the world in order to ensure lasting peace and why, as well as, What I would avoid doing and why.

The nations of the world are competing over hegemony. Each wants to become a superpower. My argument is that in order to create lasting peace in the world, the competition for great powers should be eliminated and that all nations, despite their economic or military superiority, should be regarded as equal to the others, and all nations should be answerable to one central authority. If competition for power is eradicated, the world will be a peaceful place. This argument is supported as follows;

Mearsheimer recognizes classical realism where nations seek power as the ultimate goal for reasonsbased on human nature. The causes of war are largely based on power drive and as such, nations enjoy either greater or lesser privilege than others (Measheimer, 2003). Majority of the nations in today’s world fight over specific geographical areas that are of either economic, or military importance. Inensuring that there would be everlasting peace, I would ensure that every nation has its own geographical pride. All sovereign nations created would, despite their military power, be answerable to one central state authority. This would minimize the struggle for power among nations and the competition about which nation will become a super power. One of the five assumptions in Measheimer’s book is that the international system is characterized by anarchy (self-help). Here, independent states have a central authority above them. In other words, there is no government over governments. Therefore, having a central authority would minimize competition for power. The struggle for power among nations, though it subsides, it never ends due to the struggle of each nation to be a great power in an anarchic world (Measheimer, 2003). I would, therefore, ensure that all nations divided have global hegemony and that there are no coalitions between nations since all are answerable to one central authority.

In order to ensure everlasting peace, I would, in addition, divide the world into sovereign nations, where the balance of power would be bipolar. This is because the international system structure affects the behavior of great powers. Today, the balance of power within a multi-polar or a bipolar world has affected the stability of the international system(Measheimer, 2003). As such, with a bipolar world, there would be two dominant powers rather than several competing powers. There would be no competition for hegemony. Mearsheimer also points out that states seek security as an ultimate goal for reasons based on the anarchic nature of the international system. The war is caused by the gross structure of international power and that multi-polar systems are war prone compared to bipolar systems. Considering such, I would encourage a bipolar system.

Many conflicts that occur today are caused byinequality. In dividing the world, I would ensure that there is an equal division of authority between, and among states. I would prioritize on equality. This would also minimize collisions since states strive to attain at least a regional hegemony and prevent the rise of another hegemony. Equality would eliminate offshore balancing and buck-passing as it is practiced by the United States. Three conclusions can be derived from Measheimer’s thinking. Firstly, great powers have powerful incentives, perhaps to act offensively towards each other. This result to self-help, fear and power maximization (Measheimer, 2003, p32). Due to competition for hegemony, nations concentrate on pursuing power superiority as the ultimate survival insurance. Sincenations care about their survival, this may result to war and this is what Mearsheimer refers to as the tragedy of international politics (Measheimer, 2003, p1-3). In order to avoid war and ensure lasting peace between nations, there should be an equal distribution of power.

In order to create a binding peace relationship among all divided nations, there would be a global country of peace, which would create transformation in world consciousness. This country would have a group of experts who would influence the trend in the life of the whole world family positively. This would in turn produce an environment of peace and harmony and prevent the outbreak of conflict and violence in any part of the world.

There are things that I would not do in dividing the world in order to ensure lasting peace. Based on structural realism, the state’s power structure is very significant, and that security threats are not the only cause of wars. Economic and ideological reasons play an important role. Also, identity and culture play a role in conflicts. In order to avoid such conflicts between nations, I would ensure that all nations trade and react in a peaceful manner by having a panel to solve all disagreements. I will never glorify any nation over the other as this would lead to a feeling of inferiority and insecurity.

In addition, I would not allow nations to acquire war machinery. The act of acquiring weapons in one state makes the other nationsbe fearful, and this makes them start looking for ways to be stable just like the other nations. This is based on Mearsheimer’s assumption that no nation can be convinced that the other will not attack it(Measheimer, 2003). By not allowing arms in all states, there would be peace among nations. There would also be an international disarmament system, which would ensure that all nations are free of arms; thus, they cannot harm each other.

In sum, this essay has explained on how the earth can be divided to ensure lasting peace. The explanation bases itself in Measheimer’s book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” focusing more on his account of the causes of war. In today’s world, every nation is striving to become a great power by acquiring more weapons, having a strong military power and also being economically stable. This strive has led to conflicts and hostility between nations and which in some states, has led to unending wars. If the nations become equally distributed in terms of power, have a bipolar system and eliminate hegemony, the world will be a peaceful place.

Reference

Measheimer, J. J. (2003). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 1-576.