Introduction

It is widely observed that the post war period was a critical turning point for realism to be termed as a “monocausal mania” with multi-causal syntheses (John Ruggie,1989). Exogenous causes of state behavior as varying domestic interests, collective beliefs, and international institutions and norms tend to trump the effects of material power that is the core commitment of realism. Hence, there is a high tendency of differentiation between classical realists and realists who aknowledge that international politics are not independent from law, morality and economics. An example of this self-conscious dichotomy is the distinquish of realist and non-realist elements by Morgenthau in Politics among Nations. Morgenthau’s view in realist elements is exclusively summarized in the power struggle and political independence that truly resemble the state of nature described by Hobbes: ....’’ International politics would be governed solely by...considerations of political expediency...In such a world the weak would be at the mercy of the strong’’. In regards to Morgenthau and his historical predessesors from the Thucydides to Waltz, recent formulations of realism are minimalist depending to five basic assumptions

1. States are the primary actors in international politics

2. The fixed political expediency seeks the duo of secure and power: egotistical goals regarding territorial integrity and expand in the international environment

3. Self help is the primary state behavior in reaction to the anarchic external environment. Minimal realism depends on the claim of Watz that realism backbone is structured, based on the requirements for egotism and self-preservation(need for survival).Any other observed state behavior cannot draw classical realist assumptions.

4. The state always operates in a rational way, engaging in actions who results on outcome with full advantage for the state. The strategy of pursuing relative gains (or “power politics”) assumes the existence of anarchy and “continuous relations ( Joseph Grieco, Martin Wight)

5. Force either political(threat of force) or military is an integral instrument of the state

These five assumptions are widely acceptable both by realist and no realist theorists. However, theories of international trade policy and theories of the role of national ideologies come to mitigate the classical realist predictions for the state behavior. In The Logic of Anarchy, Barry Buzan, Charles Jones, and Richard Little argue that realism is a synthesized system with many variables. This assumption undermines the ‘’realist commitment to notion that state power is exogenous, inalienable, material and, above all, decisive ‘’(Morgenthau, Waltz, and Gilpin). By permiting state preferences to be inserted in the realist simplistic view of the world politics as an implication of conflict and power results in the discard of the separating barrier between realism and rationalism.

Interdepedence in the scope of world politics

The balance of power through the international trade policies and interdepedence recognizes states as not political-military oriental but as trade actors(McMillan 1997). The definition of interdependence includes the foundations of vulnerability and sensitivity. In the first one is described the volume that a state is affected by a global change whereas the second one measures the relation level between states(Keohane and Nye,1977).Hence, a neutral zone in state relations is created whose results are varied from the volume of exercising trade . (Chan 1992,Kapstein 1995 ,Baldwin 1985)
From the perspective of liberalism, interdependence is theorized as a web of interaction and mutual advantages which establishes commitments, eluding the use of force (Hirschman 1977;Doyle, 1986;Keohane 1990).Anavoidably, the power preponderance-the transit of power will toughen the relations between the states. However if the interest is not worthwhile for the sacrifice of a large proportion of national material resources, governments can proceed to other solutions apart from military force. (Lemke and Kugler, eds. 1996, Kugler and Lemke 2000),
From an economical view, the transactional cost of war proved less efficient than the persue of the objectives without a non unilateral action(Deutsch 1968;Mueller 1988). A direct interaction of a state could be in contradiction with the liberal trade, reducing its solvency among the world market. The economic liberalism as it is mentioned from Adam Smith, Hume and Montesque Cain creates with the capital flow, new aligned interests for the states and the view of industrial and financial security is shifted from the expansion of territory to the depedance between the trade centers(Cain 1979,Angel 1933)
The extension of economic interests could be enchanced with the effects of the contact between individuals facilitating the development of a community under the sociocultural evolution.(Mueller 1988).In the above social effect, Keohane’s thesis about the social and political interaction comes closer to the pacific notion of liberalism in Kant’s ‘’definitive articles of peace’’(Doyle 1986;Keohane 1990;McMillan 1997).The reinforcement between peace and interdependence is highly relevant to the political democratization(Betts 1993). As a result the global commerce shifts power from states to trade centers. In these circumstances, realism could not be considered feasible unless there is as an ‘’aggressor’’ who is intended to impose status quo and a defender (Organski 1968, Organski and Kugler 1980).

Inderpedence and balance of power
From, ‘’The Retreat of the State’’ Susan Strange recognizes three positions of the balance of power in the international politics. * Power shifts from weaker to stronger * There is power that is not exercised by a stronger one * A proportion of power is drained from world markets

The unbalanced power leads states to enrich both themselves and their allies to succeed dominant power by acting without the core realist use of balancing An example of 20th century is the US interventionism through the outspread of democracy in international environment during the Vietnam War. The excessively dependance on goods and resources that US promoted as its state behavior(self help) degenerated as the order in international environment was established as a vital priority. The attempts of United States to establish through democracy their dominant position and a global balance proved to have different reaction in the environment (Karns and Mingst 1990,.

The case of Middle East

Japan after its victory against China comes as a rising state in Asia. With the gaining prominence of Japanese state in bodies like IMF and the World Bank, it is made clear that Japan acts as a ‘’global civilian power’’ influenced by the international changes. In concern to its external conditions and inderdepedence , Japan raises its regional security both by depending on its own industrialized production and in the coalition with US. The extensive coalition between US and Japan had its source not to the political notion of balancing in the name of gaining power over others, in this case USSR and its allies, but in the prevention of a future threat. This political act gave a different meaning to the ‘’bandwagoning’’ strategy that is observed to be an alternative to balancing (Organski and Kugler ,1980; Gilpin,1981; Elman and Elman,1995). Walt (1987) in response to the Waltz definition on bandwagoning, introduces the foundation of threat which undermined the centralized realist idea of power. Balancing is defined as’’ an allying with others against the prevailing threat; ‘’bandwagoning refers to alignment with the source of danger’’. In this case, Japan was pressed to enlarge its conventional forces by expanding to nuclear activities as other states like India, China, Pakistan, North Korea. The maintenance of the Non Proliferation Treaty from the side of Japan depends on the effect of inderdepedence with its neighbours,the suspicion of a future nuclear conflict, regardeless the participation of US. From the side of US, it is perceived that the persuation of the unipolar system is not feasible, as the attempts to enlarge NATO eastward and move military forces to South Korea proved unsuccessful to trump the creation of balance of power between the triangle of China-Japan-Korea(Keneth B.Pyle 1992;Strom S.,1999). In the failure of US to rise as a hegemony in Middle East, an indirect approach was attempted identified as ‘’back passing’’ and ‘’chain ganging’’. Paul Schroeder in order to correct the dogmatic realistic view of desicive power used the ‘’back passing’’ and ‘’chain ganging’ to describe both the plurality in politics behavior under the ‘’asymmetric interdepedence’’ and the strategic plan of US. Chain ganging is the formulation of alliance of strong states with the ones that seems to be indispensable for the establishment of balance and back passing is the reliance on third parties to be responsible in stopping a conflict or the ride of a hegemony(Chris-tensen and Snyder 1990). The chain ganging and back passing of US to Japan to handle the balance in Middle East tend to be similar to the alliances behavior in WW1.With this study can be observed that in the inderdepedence environment, states do not act exclusively according to their power position ‘’but deal with threat in a variety of ways; among others, they hide, join the stronger side, try to "transcend" the problem, or they balance.’’ (Schroeder P.,1994).

Conclusion

The other side of the table… interdependence as a result of the states’ behavior can lead to the benefits of mutual understanding, cultural enrichment or even to the bad effects of protectionism, conflict and war(Lake 1993).