The Theoretical Analysis Of Offensive Realism

Since the 90s of 20th century, the offensive realism has become a latest development of the realism and an important branch of structural realism. John Mearsheimer, an professor of Chicago University ,an famous American international relationship scholar, introduces this theory clearly in his book: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, published in 2001. According to the book, this article introduces Mearsheimer's offensive realism from five aspects: the theory frame the theory inheritance the theory development the theory deficiency and the theory value, in order to completely and systematically talk about the offensive realism's development from the theory of realism and its influences on the international strategy of Bush-administrationThe theory frame of offensive realism can generalize " five basic supposition " and "three kinds of behavior patterns" .The offensive realism combines the classical realism and the defensive realism. Offensive realism theory develops clearly in four aspects: expanding the balance of power theory, breaking through the safe dilemma, arguing the dipolar stability and putting forward the state theory of revisionism. Theory deficiency can gather up four aspects: cyclic and fatalistic history view, neglecting the cooperation in community of nations, simply materializing the international structure while neglecting the international mechanism, China threat theory. Except for the development and the inheritance to the realism theory, the theoretical value of offensive realism embody in dovetailing with the national strategy of Bush-administration from following three aspects: new safety view, military strategy and single side principle.However, offensive realism does not put forward a original theory inner, and its offensive notion either is not a kind of new theory achievement nothing but a sort of vulgar explanation to pursuing power. From the angle of theoretical innovation, offensive realism theory is just a kind of degraded realism theory, and its theoretic scholarship is jolly limitary. Meanwhile, although offensive realism can best explain American fire-eating offensive posture in current international politics, as well as its many aspects of conservative history view and offensive theory dovetail with Bush-administration, we cannot regard offensive realism as guilding ideology of Bush-administration. Based on comprehensive consideration of U.S.A. state interests and global situation, American foreign policy is a compromising result from different school rather than a kind of trend of thought. Only the state interests of United States and the object of sticking up for American supremacy are unvaried.