Word Count:
Question 1: “Whilst built for war, naval forces often prove to be equally valuable in peacetime.” J. J. Widen, “Naval Diplomacy - A Theoretical Approach », Diplomacy & Statecraft, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2011, p. 730. What does Widen mean by that? Why?
The non-beligerent use of naval forces during peacetime for purposes short of war is essentially referred to as naval diplomacy – the concept Widen seeks to refine through his comprehensive theoretical investigation of the existing literature. As the various taxonomies do not precisely provide for the neat categorization, this paper approaches naval diplomacy based on its nature of either coercive or cooperative. Though Widen seems reluctant to consider humanitarian assistance & disaster relief (HADR) mission and maritime security operation as part of this concept, he does concede that what constitutes naval diplomacy is the embedded political aim (or the lack thereof) of each naval operation. Indeed, behind the altruistic caveat, these operations can be regarded as subtle means for countries to either amass or project their political capital on
…show more content…
For it to be fruitful, the coerced must be communicated clearly that the coercing power is much more resolve, committed and capable in achieveing their aims than the coerced power. Failure to do so would damage the coercing power’s credibility and serves to empower future aggression against them. A comparison between the Third Taiwan Straits crisis in 1996 and the USS Pueblo crisis in 1968 illustrates this notion. The massive showcase of U.S. Navy while, in the former case, compelled Beijing to cease their hostile series of naval exercises and missile tests, failed to secure the realease of the USS Pueblo and her crew in the latter case with Pyongyang. The checkered record of coercive naval diplomacy stands as testimony to
The U.S. Navy nurtured into a challenging power in the years previous to World War II, with battleship construction being revived in 1937, commencing with the USS North Carolina . It was able to add to its fleets throughout the early years of the war when the US was still not involved, growing production of vessels both large and small. In a conflict that had a number of amphibious landings, naval superiority was important in both Europe and the Pacific. The mutual resource...
War termination and the decision of when to negotiate peace are rarely effectively planned before a war. The Russo-Japanese War is one of a few historical exceptions. The Russo-Japanese War provides three enduring lessons about war termination in a conflict fought for limited aims. First, the most effective war termination plans are created before the war. Second, continued military and political pressure can effectively improve your position to negotiate peace. Third, common interests and compromise are required for durable peace.
Affirmative Case Introduction- "We must use every tool of diplomacy and law we have available, while maintaining both the capacity and the resolve to defend freedom. We must have the vision to explore new avenues when familiar ones seem closed. And we must go forward with a will as great as our goal – to build a practical peace that will endure through the remaining years of this century and far into the next.” Because I believe so strongly in the words of U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, when she spoke at the Stimson Center Event, June 10, 1998, that I ask you to affirm today’s resolution, “Resolved: The use of economic sanctions to achieve U.S. Foreign Policy goals is moral.
This statement begins to expose the fear felt by Britain of the imposing German fleet. Due to the militaristic views of Europe, many countries desired to have more power and control, by any means possible. This hunger initiated the Naval Arms Race, in which nations believed as one country increased its naval powers, they too were obliged to increase their armed forces, to maintain a balance of power. The British had dominated the seas and many far off colonies because of their naval fleet, granting them immense power. As the Germans began to propose a new and vast naval fleet, and France and Russia formed a new alliance sparking suspicion in Britain, Germany quickly became a threat to British supremacy. This created a chain reaction of stressed importance upon naval arme...
International organizations such as NATO and the UN are essential not only for global peace, but also as a place where middle powers can exert their influence. It is understandable that since the inception of such organizations that many crises have been averted, resolved, or dealt with in some way thro...
Mingst, K. A. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 81). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
The United States gained supremacy by using the atomic bomb as a threat to force their enemies to surrender. After Japan led an attack on Pearl Harbor, the American forces retaliated by dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and then threatening to do the same on Nagasaki. “We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city” (Department). This shows how the atomic bomb was used as a means of intimidation; the use of the atomic bomb forced other countries into submission by threatening them with nuclear attack. Furthermore, the United States made it clear to its enemies that they had alternative options for reconciliation before nuclear attacks were to take place. The President of the United States explained “thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender,” and urged that Japan “accept those consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace loving Japan” (Department). This demonstrates the use of an ethical appeal by the United States because it arrouses ones sense of duty to preserve peace. While war was inevitable, the U.S. hoped that the threat of nuclear destruction would force other countries into negotiating peace instead of fighting. Evidently, by using nuclear threats as a form of intimidation, the U...
Containment seemed to be the strategy of choice for the United States. This strategy also gave America a reason t...
During the late 19th and 20th century, the United States pursues an aggressive policy of expansionism, extending its political, military, and economic influence across the globe. The events during this ‘age of imperialism’ laid the foundation for America’s international power while simultaneously defining the use of the these powers. The policy that the United States implemented at this time is known as Big Stick Diplomacy which was to speak softly but carry a big stick. This meant that the United States would ask for something or take a stance on an issue and if another nation refused or went against the United States, then the military would be summoned to ‘resolve’ the issues. This domineering foreign policy defined the politics of American Imperialism that was especially prevalent from 1890-1913.
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
The Cuban Missile Crisis exhibits the struggle for power between the two dominant powers of the time. The realist theory believes that world politics is a repetitive struggle for power and or influence. Power, in politics is largely perceived as influence and military capability. Power in mass amounts are located in objects such as nuclear missiles that have an immense influence on others. (Schmidt, 2007; Sterling-Folker & Shinko, 2007). This is clearly depicted through the actions taken by both leaders, as the simple placement of a missile had such a tremendous effect.
..., since it reinforce the perception of the surrounding states to be dealing with a country characterized by a high level of resolution and risk-taking attitude, despite its inability to confront other major power military.
War is a universal phenomenon, it is a violent tool people use to accomplish their interests. It is not autonomous, rather policy always determines its character. Normally it starts when diplomacy fails to reach a peaceful end. War is not an end rather than a mean to reach the end, however, it does not end, and it only rests in preparation for better conditions. It is a simple and dynamic act with difficult and unstable factors which make it unpredictable and complex. It is a resistant environment where the simplest act is difficult to perform. In this paper, I will argue why war is a universal phenomenon and what are the implications of my argument to strategists.
The multiple tiers of accounting for multiple variables leaves little room for error and relies heavily on improvisation. As described in “The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy,” it is like playing a game of chicken. If both parties refuse to back down, and the defending state cannot back out of its threat for fear of appearing weak, then the result would be war. By forcing a response from a state, they may be just as likely to respond aggressively as they are