themes
DESCRIPTION
Themes. Reactions to 9/11 Approaches to War on Terrorism Recommendations for Approaching War on Terrorism Lessons Learned from 9/11 Effects and Contexts of Globalization with Regard to National Security Accounting for US Reaction to 9/11 and Approaches to War on Terrorism - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
ThemesReactions to 9/11Approaches to War on TerrorismRecommendations for Approaching War on
TerrorismLessons Learned from 9/11Effects and Contexts of Globalization with
Regard to National SecurityAccounting for US Reaction to 9/11 and
Approaches to War on TerrorismDifferent types of scholars
Stephen Walt, Beyond Bin LadenWalt a realist providing proscriptions for what Bush
administration should do to combat terrorism. Written in immediate aftermath of 9/11.
Basically a plan based on an understanding of the realities of a globalized world, with the restraints on the US and the problems such a world generates.
Understands the world in terms of states, and in terms of order and threats to order. Starts with an understanding of the international contexts, then moves to considerations of US policy.
Walt: Lessons of 9/11Maintaining US predominant position in the world is
expensiveThe US is not universally liked.The most important threats to order and security are from
failed states. As such, failed states are not just a humanitarian problem.
The US must have allies in order to operate effectively in the world.
Observations:As “lessons,” these are new realizations; their opposites
wre assumed previously.But why? Were these not obvious before 9/11? Previous
experiences with terrorists, Somalia and other failed states, criticisms of US in Middle East, Muslim world, elsewhere.
Goals:Manage War on Terrorism Coalition, which
includes conferring with allies, partnerships with less than desirable regimes, compromise on various treaties, dialogue with PRC and closer relationship with Russia
Action: Move into Iraq, coalition of the willing, rejection of Global Warming and ICC treaties
Get Control of WMD’s, including dealing with loose nukes in Russia and elsewhere, arms control treaties.
Action: Iraq as source of WMDs
Goals:Rebuild ties with Arab and Muslim World:
pressure on Israel to settle Palestinian problem
Action: Dealing with Iraq as spreading democracy, Roadmap for Palestinian state
Reconstruct AfghanistanAction: Weak still, still US presence 10 years
after invasion
Problems:Difficult to rebuild AfghanistanDifficulty of resolving Palestinian questionMore active the US is, the more likely it is to
stir further resentment.
Are these the reasons why the Administration did not pursue the goals Walt provides or were unable to achieve those goals?
Leffler: Bush Doctrine After 9/11Leffler is an historian of American history
General argument is that Bush Doctrine:Has in its component parts deeper roots in
past policies than critics allege, and is also more nuanced and potentially more effective than critics charge
But, nevertheless, as a whole it is a radical departure from the past, and as such is not a bold or particularly effective policy.
Articulation vs. Reality of Bush StrategyArticulation:Emphasis on values (freedom and democracy) not
interestsEmphasis on alliances (but not necessarily
multilateralsim)Emphasis on addressing global injustice as a normative
goal through the mechanism of market capitalismReality:An attempt to meld an emphasis on values with a
realpolitik focus on interestsQuestion: why? A sign of the inevitability of realpolitik? A
sign that realpolitik must be cloaked with a rhetoric of values and justice?
Components of Bush DoctrinePre-emptive action as both acceptable and
necessary based on threat of terrorismAttempt to deter threats by maintaining a
preponderance of powerUse power to promote democracy and
freedom as well as deter threats and keep peace
Articulated as “a balance of power that favors peace” (and thus as a mixture of realist with Wilsonian conceptions)
Historical Roots of Bush StrategyCold War policy really not of containment, but of
gaining and maintaining a predominance of power that would lead to the transformation of the Soviet Union.
Cold War and other instances of unilateral actionsLong history of pre-emptive actions to eliminate
threats, particularly in Latin America, and articulation of doctrine of preemption in Clinton administration.
Emphasis on democratic peace that goes back to the 1980s.
Question: accurate understanding?
Critique of Bush DoctrineWilsonian and subsequent pursuit of democracy and
freedom linked to a community of power that emphasized self-determination and international institutions, as well as international law, not unilateral predominance and hegemony.
Balance of power implies equilibrium rather than hegemony and predominance, and assumes US balancing, not being balanced against
Balance of power also assumes states, not the transformation of states or engagement with failed states.
Threatens existing community of power without putting anything positive in its place.
Thus it does depart from historical policies as a whole and is not coherent.
Pateman: Globalization and American ExceptionalismPateman a New Zealand scholarArgument: 9/11 showed that the US, due to globalization, not
exception in its security; as with everyone else, it is vulnerable to terrorism. But Bush responded with an articulation of American exceptionalism that emphasized unilateral rather than multilateral approaches to the problem. In doing so, he followed a developing trend in US foreign policy that emphasized unilateral exceptionalism and was unable to fully digest the implications of globalization.
Thus:American policies incorporate an understanding of
exceptionalismThe question is whether that understanding will lean toward
unilateral or multilateral approaches.Affected by development of policies and incomplete
American globalization
Roots of ExceptionalismAmerican creed that asserts that as nation
embracing liberal values, the US has a unique role to play in the world
Geography and wealthContinuing influence from early history
forward of moral and particularly Christian principles.
Effects of American ExceptionalismUS understood as not just unique, but exemplary–
an example and role model for everyone else.US has a duty to spread American valuesNationalism expressed as national pride and
belief that US best nation in the world.Provides a lens for understanding foreign policy,
in that roughly before WWII, exceptionalism grounded an isolationist reluctance to become involved in the world, and after WWII grounded a policy of involvement in ordering and transforming the world.
GlobalizationThe contemporary understanding of
exceptionalism is being deployed in world that is undergoing globalization and has seen the end of the Cold War:
Globalization may have had as much to do with the end of the Cold War as US actions
No more superpower conflictUnipolar worldGreat links among countries and citizens;
porous bounaries, shrinking distances
Early Responses to End of Cold War and GlobalizationBush I administration: between a skeptical view of
globalization (it changes nothing important) and a transformational view (states still important, but they must operate differently than before).
Strategy was to further globalization in the understanding it meant Americanization and the spread of American values. Operated on the basis of a generally inclusive and multilateral approach to spreading freedom, democracy, human rights, market capitalism and international cooperation.
Iraq war generally multilateral, approved UN intervention in Somalia to restore order and for humanitarian purposes.
Problems of Globalized World that were revealed by Somalia:Weak/failed states the main sources of
instability and threatsLack of legitimate governance is what causes
civil conflictNew wars are driven by tribal, ethnic identitiesMedia have the ability to internationalize
conflictsNational boundaries are porous with regard to
security threatsResponses by the international community are
largely determined by the US position
US Reaction to Somalia incidentsCriticism that such interventions, because they
are not linked to vital US interests, should stopClinton administration changed strategy
More unilateral approachBlocked UN interventions in Bosnia and RwandaWhen it did intervene, it did so through NATO
and by using air powerMoves in multilateral direction blocked by
Republicans in Congress
Project for New American CenturyGroup of neo-conservatives who were influential in
Bush II campaign and administration whose writings reinforced unilateral understanding of exceptionalism:
Prevent rise of any rival superpowerUse force preemptively against potential threatsConfront rather than contain rogue states such as
IraqUse power and ideas to spread American values in
post Cold War world just as US did in winning the Cold War
Reactions to 9/11US vulnerable despite military power and
status as superpowerNot everybody admires US values or thinks
US hegemony benignGeorge BushResponded with characteristic exclusivist,
moralist, Christian understanding of exceptionalism:
World divided between good and evilMultilaterial action only on US terms
Afghanistan and Iraq: DifferencesAfghan War: multilateral approach that led to
military success– non-exclusivist understanding of exceptionalism
Iraq: unilateral approach and exclusivist exceptionalism that demonstrates the ascendancy of the neo-conservatives and the problems of that approach. Also demonstrated general trend of Bush policy:
React aggressively to failed statesExceptionalism conceptualized in terms of valuesSeek international support on own terms and
reserve right to act unilaterally and preemptively
Why this policy and why does public accept it?Policy:Bush’s religious viewsAdministration’s desire for moral and intellectual
clarity and decisiveness over debate and weighing of costs and benefits
Belief that US policymakers create reality rather than react to it
Public acceptance:Identity as ChristiansUnevenness of US globalization: US citizens still
isolated an do not experience globalization as others do
Problems with policyInability of administration to clearly define
enemiesWillingness to cooperate with any state
against terrorists– neglect of civil rights, return of Cold War cooperation with authoritarian regimes.
Emphasis on military meansNeglect of rule of law and liberal values in
fighting terrorism
Desch: Illiberal LiberalismGenerally conservative American political scientistArgument: Both the origins and problems of post
9/11 approach not influence of 9/11 nor the displacement of liberal values by religion or security concerns, but the influence of liberalism itself. Left unchecked, the internal workings of liberalism turns into an illiberal hostility to pluralism and civil rights.
Follows in footsteps of Hartz and others that there is a “tyrannical compulsion” in liberalism, that it responds “hysterically” to alien motives and that liberal analysis tends to see the world in either/or terms.
Lockean and Kantian LiberalismLockean liberalism assumes rationality, easy political and
economic development, favors democracy over order and condemns revolutions. Makes liberal policy at times utopian, counter-revolutionary and arrogant.
Kantian liberalism privileges the notion of democratic peace (that democratic
nations will not go to war unless forced because citizens will restrain officials).
Privileges international organizationArgues for political uniformity (republican democracy)
rather than pluralism for purposes of peaceThus holds that states have a moral duty to enter a world
order and that states in such an order may make the amoral decision for coerce other states to change their regime to accord with the liberal democratic ideal, just as individuals have the right to create a state and force others to obey it.
Effects of Kantian Understanding of Democratic PeaceA liberal foreign policy could morally force states to
accept a liberal democratic government even if its citizens did not want it. The imperative of democratic peace trumps self-determination
While will probably remain at peace with other democracies, will be likely to engage in conflicts with weaker non-democracies
Can combine with non-liberal analyses to produce understandings of benign hegemony and altruistic imperialism
Can lead to aggressive efforts at democracy promotion
Leads to activist and expansionist policies.
Illiberal Responses to TerrorismNeo conservatives are generally liberals, differing
from Wilsonians only in their preference for unilateralism. So neo-conservative agenda really a liberal agenda
Overstate the threat posed by terrorismPrefer eliminating to containing threatsAggressive democracy promotionUse force in humanitarian interventionsDomestically:
Curtail civil liberties based on hostility to what is not liberal
Hysteria in the face of what is not understood. Opponents who condemn liberalism must be crazy or evil because liberal precepts are rational and self-evident.
SolutionIf the problem is liberalism, making policy
more liberal will not eliminate the illiberal elements.
Must have none-liberal understanding to check liberalism.
Best solution is to have liberal view for domestic affairs, but realism for foreign policy.
ComparisonsLessons of globalization: learned in 2001 or
earlier?US rejects globalization or is not globalized?What are the roots of the Bush approach? In
past policies, in American culture or in ideology?
Are the problems with American policy due to its adherence to the past or is break with the past? With its incoherence or in its liberal coherence? In its realism or lack of realism?