Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
International Relations and Conflict
Walt: Study of international affairs…
International Relations and Conflict
Walt: Study of international affairs is best understood as a continuing competition between the realist, liberal and radical traditions.
Examples
NATO expansion
Realist: for extending Western influence during a period of Russian weakness, likely to provoke a harsh response from Moscow
Liberal: reinforce nascent democracies of Central Europe and extend NATO's conflict mgmt mechanisms to a potentially turbulent region.
3rd view: value of incorporating the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland within the Western security community.
China
Rising powers to alter global balance of power, or influenced by its integration into world markets and spread of democratic principles?
Fukuyama: China to join the West and accept the end of history. Mearsheimer: for the West to form a potent coalition to balance and contain China's power. Huntington: respect China's difference and hold back from attempts to stifle its influence.
Trump (Pijovic article)
Realists
Trump will not be able to change much of America's current foreign policies (into isolationist / protectionist) because relations among states are determined by structural issues, not the individual. Since system is marked by anarchy, and US is already most powerful, it should maintain status quo.
Serves US interests and intl power to remain actively engaged globally. Not good to raise import tariffs since US is no longer competitive at producing some goods. And not sure how provoking open military / trade conflict with China will actually help boost US power and dominance globally.
Constructivists
May change a lot since he promotes isolationism, protectionism and conflict with China. Individuals and ideas help shape foreign policy.
Electoral success proves that his words being taken seriously. But recent mid term elections show otherwise. People not approving of his foreign policy.
Both are right.
-
But anarchical structure of intl system and concerns over state survival serve to obtrude or promote choices available to the individuals.
-
Current peaceful era
Realist: Common enemy in China and Russia, with American hegemony.
Liberalism: Democratic institutions with checks and balances, transparency and debate, which constrains leaders. Economic interdependence and intl organisations.
Constructivism: shared norms of non-violence, socialised attitudes and beliefs conducive to democracy, common identity as democracies.
Liberalism
What is it? Cooperate to mitigate conflict in anarchic world. Three sub-theories:
- Economic interdependence to discourage states from going into war which threatens prosperity. Costs of disrupting ties effectively preclude use of force. Bringing China and Russia into the relentless embrace of world capitalism is the best way to promote peace and prosperity particularly if this process creates a strong middle class in these states and reinforces pressures to democratise.
- Spread of democracy as key to world peace because democratic states were deemed more peaceful than authoritarian ones.
- International institutions like IMF could resolve conflicts between states and encourage states to forgo immediate gains for greater benefits of lasting cooperation. Foster trust and reciprocity.
-
Fukuyama: final modern consensus on democracy and capitalism, the globalisation of Western liberalism, and the homogenisation of all human societies, driven by technology and wealth. Liberal democracy remains the only coherent political aspiration that spans different regions and cultures, but he recognises that illiberal politics and conflict would persist for some time in the developing world, which remains "stuck in history". Rejects realist theory of intl relations.
States interact through cooperation. Communication and interdependency can overcome anarchical intl relations. Conflicts will still occur if we fail to align interests; but less common in a world because we interact more.
Realism
What is it? Emphasises enduring propensity for conflict between states for survival and security. International affairs as a struggle for power among self-interested states who want to dominate because they had to preserve themselves in an anarchic world with no world govt. Use of coercive measures, threat of war, forming alliances against other states to increase their relative power.. Dominant view in CW.
Since end of CW - realism redux: States worry about the way gains from cooperation are distributed among participating states.
-
Offense-defense theory: War is more likely when states can conquer each other easily (weak defense). More security when defense stronger than offense, thus states chose to cooperate and acquire means to defend itself without threatening others. States merely wanted to survive. Great powers could guarantee their security by alliances.
New issues: Break up of multi-ethnic states can place rival ethnic groups in anarchic setting, trigger them to use force to improve its relative position (e.g. Yugoslavia). NATO expansion would jeopardise relations with Russia.
Fukuyama rejects realist theory of history not as a progression toward enlightenment and peace but as a cycle of conflict.
Mearsheimer: Realist who argued that there would continue to be brutal competition for power. Countries end in conflict out of desire for peace. Without a world govt to enforce rights, it is impossible to trust one another and simply striving for security drives them to dominate.
Balance of Power theory: when one state gets inordinate power, most realists believe that other states will ally together to balance against the big power, rather than form an alliance with the threat.
Institutions exert no independent effect. Merely reflects interests of powerful states in the system, e.g. IMF gives more votes to the state that puts in more money.
Radical approaches
-
Since end of CW - Constructivist theories: Central issue in post-CW world is how different groups conceive their identities and interests. Formation and impact of ideas. Focus on actors (such as states or NGO etc) who construct their own interests over time. Interests affected by ideas (values, norms and beliefs important to us). About persuasion and norm change. Institutions as social norms that guide behaviour. Intl institutions define and shape norms, so following it reflects a logic of appropriateness rather than of consequences, e.g. don't do something bcos it is unethical.
- But Marxist ideas comeback bcos of rising inequality.
Overlap with concept of culture:
- Culture to explain why Germany and Japan has thus far eschewed more self-reliant military policies.
- Huntington's clash of civilisations - broad cultural affinities supplanting national loyalties.
The "complete diplomat" of the future should remain cognizant of realism's emphasis on the inescapable role of power, keep liberalism's awareness of domestic forces in mind, and occasionally reflect on constructivism's vision of change.
Realism still the most compelling framework for understanding intl relations. States continue to pay close attention to balance of power.
US is determined to preserve dominance: Take advantage of its superiority to impose its preferences whenever possible. Forced one-sided arms control agreements on Russia. Called repeatedly for greater reliance on multilateralism and larger role for intl institutions, but treated agencies like UN and WTO with disdain whenever their actions don't conform with US interests.
- US cloak their actions in lofty rhetoric of "world order", but self-interests lies behind most of them.
Realism only explains why states behave this way, but does not provide any help. Liberalism identifies the instruments that states can use to achieve shared interests, highlight the powerful economic forces and help us understand why states may differ in basic preferences.
Constructivist theories are best suited to analyse how identities and interests can change over time, and produce subtle shifts in state behaviour that trigger shifts in intl affairs.
Also keep in mind the visions of Fukuyama, Huntington and Mearsheimer that point towards different forces setting the odds of conflict or cooperation.
Convergence
Realists recognising that nationalism, ethnicity etc are important. Liberals acknowledging that power is central to intl behaviour. Constructivists admitting that ideas will have greater impact when backed by powerful states and reinforced by enduring material forces.
Fukuyama, like the other 2, worries that a Western civilisation that went no further than the triumph of materialism and justice would be unable to defend itself from civilisations whose citizens were ready to forsake comfort and safety and who were not afraid to risk their lives for the sake of dominion
A less ambitious version of Fukuyama's vision that stops short of full westernisation of "the rest" is quite compatible with Huntington's, which urged the West to concentrate on keeping itself together.
Fukuyama conceded that realism still applied to dealings with the part of the world still suck in history (compatible with Mearsheimer).
Huntington accepted much of realism - civilisational struggle still played out in large part among the "core states" in each culture. He also believed in liberal values celebrated as the end of history, and argued for strengthening them in the West only. Seems like the most trenchant message of the 3.
-
Huntington
The world was unifying economically and technologically, but not socially.
West would remain dominant for some time, but in gradual decline. West vs the rest.
Modernisation is not the same as westernisation. Foreigner's participation in Western consumer culture does not mean that they accept Western values.
Spreading Western values does not promote peace, but provokes resistance. The wiser alternative is to accept that the security of the world requires acceptance of global multi-cultirality..
-
Betts: Fukuyama's solution is Huntington's problem. To avoid escalating conflict requires rejecting universalism, respecting legitimacy of non-Western cultures and refraining from intervention in the conflicts of non-Western civilisations.
When 9/11 happened, many skeptics decided that Huntington was right after all. He saw Islam as a significant challenge, but Fukuyama saw the Islamic exception as a minor distraction, and that Islamic countries were able to democratise.
Huntington anticipated how problematic the Islam world would be. US sought to defend itself against al-Qaeda, partly because Washington backs Israel (a Western outpost in a Muslim region), and partly because Bush (going against Huntington's warning against meddling) and launched invasion of Iraq, which antagonised Muslims around the world.
Like Fukuyama, recognises the impact of globalisation, but saw it as generating conflict rather than consensus. And like Mearsheimer, he believed soft power is power only when it rests on the foundation of hard power, but he saw the relevant concentrations of power as transnational cultural areas (8 basic civilisations).