After playing out various realist notions on the Risk board and writing my midterm paper in earnest defense of realist motivations, I can finally proclaim with out hesitation that I don’t believe self-interest alone should propel our country’s foreign policy agenda. When asked what would winning look like in actual world politics, I could easily spit out a convincing argument for total U.S. hegemony supported by the lovely simplistic world of realist IR theory. But that would be a disingenuous and unfortunate attempt to sidestep the challenge of advocating the more complicated liberal and constructivist IR theories. These theories are not as black and white largely because, much to the chagrin of ardent realists out there, the political world is a particularly opaque shade of grey.
If I was to rely on my own objective sheet based on my ideals and political values, “winning” would be a Risk board that accurately portrays where I think the international political world will be in a half or full century from now. Naturally, the Risk board would have a significant presence by the United States (perhaps similar to the blue team) in all areas of the world. However, this is not just because I want to sustain U.S. hegemony in the world for my own security. More importantly, this large presence is important because of the effectiveness of our nation’s democratic ideals and values. “Democratic peace liberal” theorists accurately suggest that democracies are inherently more predisposed to peaceful intentions. However, this large U.S. presence would be balanced by the rising power of the European Union in international relations. The presence of two relatively friendly large state or inter-state actors on the Risk board would be a growing “win” as both hegemonic actors share responsibility for the larger global issues of the 21st century, namely confronting climate change, quelling terrorism by violent non-state actors, and achieving economic stability.
This ideal Risk board would be what I personally consider a win. Call me naïve but I truly think that, given good progressive leadership, the world of international relations will be heading in this direction in the next fifty to hundred years.
I agree that it seem that the U.S. is transitioning towards a more multipolar world, or at least a world which consists of more multilateral action. I'm just curious why you believe a multipolar world is better than the status quo?
ReplyDeleteIt just seems to be that the basis of democratic peace theory can be directly correlated with economic factors. This isn't a contradiction regarding the thesis of democratic peace theory, but rather the nature of democracy. Market-oriented economies tend to be fiscally stable. The consistent flow of capital provides the economic benefits nations need which create a disincentive for aggressive action seen through resource wars.
Given the nature of economic development being a pre-requisite to democracies, it seems that a world that has the U.S. balanced by the E.U. would be unnecessary. The status quo allows the U.S. to promote free trade agreements with countries that benefit the U.S. while aiding foreign countries as well. I made a reference to the South Korean Free Trade Agreement on Hija Tierra's, whoever that is, blogpost. It basically said that the proposed agreement wouldn't directly benefit the U.S. and would almost certainly have significant economic benefits to South Korea. Additionally, countries we don't directly engage in trade with the U.S. probably have external issues that prevent trade being beneficial to the U.S., such as North Korea and Iran. Even if we don't engage in free trade with all countries, we provide more foreign aid than numerous countries do combined. This foreign aid helps developing countries and allows them to eventually transition to democracies.
A world balanced by the E.U. would make the U.S. more susceptible to international norms within domestic policy. A prime example of this is the Law of the Sea Treat (LOST). The Treaty establishes guidelines on how the oceans are utilized and navigated. While many countries would benefit from this, it wouldn't be uniquely beneficial to the U.S. The agreement would create an international court that would be have to implemented in the U.S.' judicial system. This would potentially break the Judiciary's system of utilizing stare decisis (using precedent for rulings) and would drastically alter U.S. domestic policies. An example of this in the context of LOST would be non-U.S. organizations trying to affect U.S. domestic environmental policy by seeking legal action in both U.S. and international courts (Ridenour, 2006). While this is just one example, the implementation of international norms on a domestic level would be increased in a world where the E.U. has geopolitical influence over the U.S.
The status quo effectively promotes democracy without multilateral action. Courts worldwide have been modeled and set up based upon the U.S.' judicial system. The American model of constitutionalism has created a specific set of rights and liberties that are appealing to emerging democracies worldwide (CFJ, 2004). Afghanistan is currently trying to set up a more democratic form of government and is using the U.S. as a model.
I'm basically wondering what you feel the value of the world you envision as a "win" would be.
I'm also quasi-playing devil's advocate.
Cites:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA542LawoftheSeaTreaty.html
www.ccr-ny.org/v2/rasul_v_bush/legal/petitioners/Emerging%20Democracies%20Brief.pdf
Thanks for bringing out some concerns. Most of what you say here I agree with whole-heartedly. I think, however, to begin we are talking past each other on a foundational level. When asked what a win would look like in actual politics, I answered this question briefly from a sort of objective utilitarian perspective. I am looking at this question and thinking: what is the best possible situation for the most amount of players on the field? I am not viewing this as what is the best possible situation for our player. I just wanted to clarify this point.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right that the status quo is presently optimal for international peace and prosperity based on democratic peace theory, economic relations, etc. But as we move further into the 21st century, the largest international security issues are not inter-state conflicts but rather external global threats like global warming, terrorism by non-state actors, etc. Because of this, we need to ask the question: is the unilateral U.S. hegemony up to this challenge?
While U.S. hegemony has been effective in the past, unilateral action on our part has recently proven futile. Case and point, our struggle in the War on Terror. The U.S.'s historic hegemonic identity comes with a price. While we have power, we also have the burden of responsibility that allows European and other countries to effectively bandwagon on issues while we spill all our resources. Even with terrorism effecting Europe everyday, the U.S. does the bulk of the dirty work on combatting this threat. Because of Europe's passivity, U.S. unilateral action fails with these large external issues.
So the value is this: empower the European countries through the structure of the EU and the U.S. will have an effective partner in combatting the real large external threats of the 21st century. The U.S. must be willing to mildly adjust the status quo power structure if we are serious about tackling the issues that will weigh on our generation in the future.
Do you think the best possible situation for all players in the international system is equal? Or do you acknowledge that the best possible situation potentially consists of unequal distributions of economic and general power?
ReplyDeleteThe reason I ask this is because I believe that the U.S. can and should sustain its ability to be "better off" than other countries. Meaning, I think it's in the U.S.' unique interest to remain as appealing as possible to countries. This means that countries can consistently engage with the U.S. but there would be strategic benefits to engaging in the U.S. that would firstly benefit the U.S. then other nations. I think I isolate a couple reasons why this is important in my comment above.
I'm not sure if you're advocating increased multilateralism or a multipolar world. Your original post seems to advocate a world in which the U.S. is balanced by the E.U. I disagree with this via my first comment. I agree that multilateralism is important, but it doesn't seem like a prerequisite to a multipolar world. Multilateral interactions can and should exist, yet they shouldn't take precedent over how our government domestically runs policies. I feel like the risk of international law overwhelming domestic law is high in a world in which the U.S. is balanced by the E.U.
So just to clarify, do you advocate a multipolar world, increased multilateralism, or multilateralism as an introduction to a multipolar world?
Also, what adjustment do you advocate the U.S. make in order to create the "best possible solution"