Kegley chapter 9

1,123 views
1,043 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,123
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
73
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
37
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Realists believe that power has driven world politics throughout history, and place a premium on military security in shaping foreign policy.
  • Bandwagoning: the tendency for weak states to seek alliance with the stronger power, regardless of ideology, in order to increase security
  • Hegemony: the ability of one state to lead in world politics by promoting its worldviewruling over arrangements governing international economics and politics
  • The exact meaning of the balance of power is controversial, but generally speaking, it includes the idea that national security is enhanced when military capabilities are widely distributed, not held by primarily one state. It is believed that if one state gains overwhelming power, it will attack its weaker neighbors, causing an incentive for a defensive coalition.
  • One major cost that a hegemon must pay is to open its own market to less-expensive imported goods even if other countries do not open their markets. International cooperation is hard to maintain.
  • Expected utility theory is one type of the ideal foreign-policy model known as the rational action model.
  • Zeitgeist isthe “spirit of the times,” or the dominant cultural norms influencing people living in a particular time period.
  • The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is viewed as hypocritical by countries such as Iran and North Korea because it “approves” the possession of nuclear weapons in the U.S., Russia, China, Great Britain and France, while denying it to all others.
  • Prisoner’s Dilemma: (from game theory) a non-zero-sum situation in which two prisoners have incentives to cooperate, and if they do, both will benefit. However, if one defects, both will suffer.
  • The United States also currently holds a significant amount of soft power as a hub of global communication and popular culture, with the means to spread its values throughout the world. The combination of military, economic and cultural power gives the U.S. extraordinary ability to shape world events.
  • In multipolar systems, power appears on two playing fields: military and economic. Major players will align where issues intersect.
  • Kegley chapter 9

    1. 1. Chapter 9: Alliances, Arms Control, and the Balance of Power
    2. 2. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Realist Road to Security Assumptions and Policy Recommendations Realist Policy Prescriptions Premises Prepare for war: If you want peace, prepare for war. Remain vigilant: No state is to be trusted further than its national interest. Avoid moralism: Standards of right and wrong apply to individuals, but not states. Remain involved and actively intervene: Isolationism is not an alternative to active global involvement. Protect with arms: Strive to increase military capabilities; fight rather than submit. Preserve the balance of power: Do not let any other state or coalition become dominant. Prevent arms races from resulting in military inferiority with rivals: Negotiate agreements with competitors to maintain a favorable military balance. 2
    3. 3. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Alliances  Two or more states combine military capabilities; formal agreements to coordinate behavior  Increase deterrence  Increased defense capabilities  Allies don’t ally with enemies 3
    4. 4. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Realist Criticisms of Alliances (1 of 2)  Can increase capabilities of aggressive states  Provoke formation of counter-alliances  Can draw in otherwise neutral states  Must try to control behavior of allies  Today’s ally may be tomorrow’s enemy  Foreclose options 4
    5. 5. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Realist Criticisms of Alliances (2 of 2)  Reduce adaptability  Eliminate bargaining advantages that come from ambiguity  Provoke fears of adversaries  Entangle states in disputes of allies  Stimulate envy of states outside the alliance  Preserves existing rivalries  But alliances can still be useful 5
    6. 6. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Balance of Power  Peace most likely to be maintained when military power is distributed so that no single power or bloc can dominate  An ambiguous concept  Weakness invites attack, so countervailing power must be used to deter potential aggressors  Size principle: competing alliances are roughly equal in power 6
    7. 7. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Rules for an Effective Balancing Process  Stay vigilant—identify potential threats and opportunities  Seek allies when you cannot match the armaments of an adversary  Remain flexible in making alliances  Oppose any state that seeks hegemony  Be moderate in victory 7
    8. 8. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Criticisms of Balance of Power Theory  The theory’s rules are contradictory  It assumes that policymakers possess accurate, timely information about other states  The tendency of defense planners to engage in worst-case scenario planning can spark an arms race.  It assumes that decision makers are risk averse  It has not been effective 8
    9. 9. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Alternatives to Balance of Power  Hegemonic Stability Theory  A concert of great powers • Common sense of duty • Normative consensus is fragile 9
    10. 10. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning The Causes of War  Realism-systemic; anarchic nature of the system  Capitalism and War  Free Trade and Peace 10
    11. 11. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning State Level and Sub-State Level Theories of War  Regime Type  Expected Utility Theory  Aggressive States  Imperialist States  Nationalism  War as a Diversion 11
    12. 12. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Individual Level Theories  Human Aggression  Theory of Natural Selection 12
    13. 13. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Individual Leaders: Madmen and Megalomaniacs  Will to power of Adolph Hitler  Misperceptions  ―The Fog of War‖ 13
    14. 14. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Disagreement About Three Different Main Causes  Causes as permissive conditions: reasons why war is possible: especially prominent in realist theory.  General sources of conflict: also known as the underlying causes of war. This notion of cause is found in many theories at the systemic and state level.  Causes as decisions to initiate war, especially prominent at the state and individual levels. 14
    15. 15. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Arms Control  1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM)  SALT I and SALT II  The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty  The Campaign to Ban Landmines 15
    16. 16. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Limits to Arms Control  Skeptics say it only works where it is not needed.  Some weapons may help prevent wars, but increase destructiveness. 16
    17. 17. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Arms Agreements  Arms control vs. disarmament  Bilateral agreements  Multilateral agreements  Possibilities for cooperation are low • Prisoner’s Dilemma 17
    18. 18. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Caging the Nuclear Threat: The Negotiated Control and Reduction of Deployed Strategic U.S. and Russian Warheads 18
    19. 19. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Balance of Power Models  Unipolarity • United States just after World War II • United States now?  Bipolarity • United States/Soviet Union 1949–1989 • NATO–Warsaw Pact • Extended deterrence  Multipolarity 19
    20. 20. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Future Multipolarity?  United States  China  Russia  European Union  Japan  Brazil  India 20
    21. 21. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning A Power Transition in the Global Hierarchy 21
    22. 22. Copyright 2010 Cengage Leaning Web Links  Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS)  Federation of American Scientists  International Relations and Security Network  NATO 22

    ×