Equifinality of Forcible Regime Promotion

1978 Words4 Pages

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.

Open Document