Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
USA foreign policy
A Concise History of U.S. Foreign Policy 3rd
Contemporary foreign policy us
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: USA foreign policy
Equifinality of Forcible Regime Promotion
Much of the contemporary commentary about U.S. policy towards Syria reduces to a debate for or against regime change which many observers characterize as a standard U.S. objective linked to a belief in American exceptionalism. President Obama tried to disavow such a view during his speech in Cairo in 2009 entitled, “A New Beginning.” His declaration there that, “No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other,” was an emphatic rejection of what John M. Owen, IV describes as a “fairly common practice of statecraft.” In this paper I will summarize Owen’s main ideas from The Clash of Ideas in World Politics: Transnational Networks, States, and Regime Change, 1510-2010, analyze his research design, evaluate the coherence of his central argument, and assess his contribution to International Relations scholarship. Although Owen’s work sheds light on the phenomenon of forcible regime promotion, his explanation is only one of several plausible causes.
Book Summary
The Clash of Ideas in World Politics is an ambitious attempt to unveil the conditions that induce governments to use military force to promote specific regime types in other countries. Owen’s review of history from 1510-2010 reveals 209 incidents of states using force to support or change a specific regime type (ex ante forcible regime promotion) or changing a state’s regime upon conclusion of military operations (ex post forcible regime promotions). These 209 promotions do not include the forcible imposition of a regime over conquered or occupied territory that was absorbed by the conquering state; Owen only includes incidents in which conquered states retained at least quasi independence. Owen als...
... middle of paper ...
...an rationally equate regime type with intention then Walt’s defensive realism can explain the phenomenon of forcible regime promotion. States promote specific regime types to reduce threats.
Accepting Owen’s constructivist argument requires more detailed process tracing to show the causal links between TINs and forcible regime promotion. Owen has provided a thick description of rulers’ decisions to forcibly promote regime types in other countries and this description invites more research into the possible causes of this phenomenon. Others will have to build on his work to better assess the true impact of TINs on rulers’ decisions. TINs’ influence and ideological polarization certainly effected the environment in which rulers and governments made their decisions. However, there remain other plausible explanations for states’ actions that cannot be discounted.
The authoritarian regimes of the Middles cycled through a pattern of anti-western policy until the globalization effects of economics and information demanded reform. As conservative Arab states try to maintain the autocracy they relied on after gaining independence, their citizens, affected by information and education expansion, challenge their resistant governments as typified by Syria’s unwillingness to capitulate. The proliferation of information and education underscored the protest movements of the Arab Spring because citizens’ contempt for their obstinate governments grew to large under economic pressures, as the current situation in Syria demonstrates.
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Chapter 1: Introduction The problem of internal revolt is inherent to all empires, as it is difficult to consistently maintain authority over a large and diverse population. Although empires have taken steps to prevent a loss of control from occurring, even the utmost vigilance has either not been enough, or has lapsed long enough for a revolt to occur. The resulting uprising might be minor, or it might be serious enough to threaten a crucial territory. How empires have dealt with a major internal revolt is instructive in several ways: it tests whether or not the empire's military is strong enough to deal with revolts, it tests the ability of the ruler or the ruling class to maintain their authority in the face of the challenge, and it provides a way to examine an empire's policies by looking at which ones may have contributed to the revolt, and which were changed or introduced in its aftermath.
...heories outlined in this paper. One of the defining principles of realism is that the state is paramount to anything else, including morality. Realists argue that deviation from the state interests in an anarchic system creates vulnerability. Morality of state theorists uphold state sovereignty and argue that intervention is not permissible unless the circumstances are crass and warrant action. They talk about aggression as the only crime that one state can commit to another and suggest that aggression should only be allowed as a retaliatory measure. Finally, cosmopolitans believe that morality can be achieved at the individual level and that morality can be somewhat universally applied. Non-realists do not support preemptive actions or intervention under almost any condition, and the criteria by which intervention is warranted aligns with the principles of justice.
Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush administration’s rationale for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq was based on two misleading assumptions: firstly, Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (along with Iran and North Korea) and secondly, that it was aiding and protecting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Such a conjecture based on unsubstantiated evidence helped Bush administration conjure up a dystopian situation which justified 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of “security maximization”. This explanation was given in pursuance of the realist assumption that States’ as rational actors always act in accordance with their national security interests.
Coercion, and subsequently the right to use violence, is the state’s sole method for functioning and existing. Without it, the state is powerless to exist credibly. Thus, at the core of political theory is the argument to justify the state’s use of coercion; without this, the state cannot be ethically justifiable. However, can a violent, or otherwise morally dubious act such as coercion, ever be truly justified? If enough good comes of it, surely it could be mitigated, but how much ‘good’ is enough? And can we really ever justify the indefinite use of coercion based solely upon favorable outcomes that have occurred in the past? If we cannot, then the only option that may be justified could be anarchy.
While there are many theories one can draw upon to explain the background and outbreak of political conflict this paper will focus on the ‘Misperception Theory’. The prime objectives of this paper are to clearly document and explain the different facets of misperception theory, to effectively explore the various means by which decisions based on this theory can affect state policy and state welfare, and to reveal how exactly the misperception theory can aid scholars in understanding how and why conflict erupts. This paper will utilise the misperception theory to illustrate how, and why, the US and Great Britain overestimated the military pedigree and threat of the Saddam Hussein governed Iraq. Their misperception of the situation ultimately resulted in the two superpowers combining forces and invading the Gulf state in 2003.
There is a point of time in certain a country’s history where they become dominant and more powerful than ever before. During this elongated process a country becomes an empire. The British and the Ottomans were states that succeeded in this process, but becoming an empire such as theirs required vast amounts of political and social maneuvering to expand their boundaries, called imperialism. Imperialism is, “a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force”. By becoming a modern nation enjoying economic prosperity and political stability, the British and the Ottomans created an imperialistic impact over the globe with distinctive motivations and approaches especially during the transition period of gaining ample amount power and influence globally.
In realism, states are seen as rational, unitary actors. Realists assume that the actions of a state are representative of the entire state’s population, disregarding political parties, individuals, or domestic conflict within the state (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2010). Any action a state takes is in an effort to pursue national interest. National interest is “the interest of a state overall (as opposed to particular political parties or factions within the state)” (qtd. in Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2010, p. 355). If a state is rational, they are capable of performing cost-benefit analysis by weighing the cost against the benefit of each action. This assumes that all states have complete information when making choices (Goldstein & Pe...
Tarrow, Sidney. “Transnational Politics: Contention and Institutions in International Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science, 2001.4.
In conclusion, Realism is able to explain the outcomes, actual and hypothetical, of NK policies, since its common assumption matches the centrality of the nuclear issue to the agenda of the country. In addition to that, Neoclassical Realism also provides a valuable explanation for some of the nation more relevant foreign policy patterns of behavior.
Lawson, Fred H. "Syria." Politics & society in the contemporary Middle East. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2010. 411 - 434. Print.
Political uprisings in the Middle East, especially in Muslim nation states have placed Arabian politics back on the focus point of international politics. Political events in certain Arab countries had an excessive impact on the political development of other neighboring states. Resistances and anxieties within different Arab countries triggered unpredictable actions, sometimes sorely to observe and believe. The authoritarian governments of Arabian countries led from various dictators have created a precarious situation for their people, especially in providing national security and maintaining peace in the region. Jack Goldstone argues that the degree of a sultan’s weakness has been often only visible in retrospect; due in part to the nature of the military-security complex common across Middle East states (Goldstone 1). In addition, the existence of various statesmen with political affiliation is concerned in faithfulness of its armed forces. Usually, the armed national forces of several states, mainly those in Arab countries are loyal and closely affiliated to their leaders, which have a major role in state regimes. Arab uprisings in their early spreading appeared legally responsible and with concrete demands from representatives’ peoples, calling for a more open democratic system and reasonable governance. Even though, the system in which popular frustration with government imposes alters considerably from one state to another. These public revolts against different authoritative governments didn’t halt just in Arab states, but they sustained also in the Far East and in the Eastern Europe. Can we say that the popular uprisings in Arab countries could be attributed to the term of globalization? In fact, globalization is a multi...
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
In order to answer the question concerning the formation of states, it is necessary to clarify what constitutes a state; the Oxford English Dictionary defines a state as ‘a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government’. There are a number of ways and processes in which to analyse what state formation is, why they have formed and the way in which this has occurred. State emergence can be traced back to the creation of territorial boundaries in medieval Europe, such as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and its transition to a modern state can be attributed to the introduction of gunpowder in war (Hague & Harrop, 2010: 64). The formations of states have also been influenced by the growth of bureaucracy, administration and organisations. There are different theories as to the reason why states form, a certain few of which can be divided into the categories of rationalist, culturalist and structuralist perspectives. In this essay, these perspectives shall enter the debate in trying to justify the reason for state formation and the way in which it occurs. The most prominent feature in the formation of states appears to be the prevention and engagement of a state in war and its following consequences.