DOCSLIB.ORG

The International Sources of Soviet Change Author(S): Daniel Deudney and G

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The International Sources of Soviet Change Author(S): Daniel Deudney and G The International Sources of Soviet Change Author(s): Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry Reviewed work(s): Source: International Security, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Winter, 1991-1992), pp. 74-118 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539089 . Accessed: 09/01/2012 02:11 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Security. http://www.jstor.org The InternationalDaniel Deudney and Sources of Soviet G. JohnIkenberry Change The Cold War has ended, shiftingglobal political life on a scale not seen in fiftyyears. At the heart of these changes were domestic and foreignpolicy choices made by the Soviet Union. In domestic affairs,the Communist Party gave up its political monopoly, then collapsed, glasnosthas aired historicalcrimes and failings,and socialist economics is being abandoned. In foreignaffairs, the Soviets have acquiesced in the complete collapse of communistclient regimes in Eastern Europe and the unificationof Germany, accepted far-reaching force reduction and disarmament agreements, sought to strengthenthe United Nations, and embarked upon a broad effortto solve regional con- flicts.'The speed and magnitude of these changes, acceleratingin the wake of the abortive August coup, have exhilarated world public opinion and stunned Western foreignpolicy elites. They have also overturnedmuch of the conventionalwisdom in the West about the permanence of the East-West Daniel Deudneyis AssistantProfessor of PoliticalScience at the Universityof Pennsylvania and author ofthe forthcoming book Pax Atomica: States and Republics in Sustainable Global SecuritySystems. G. JohnIkenberry is AssistantProfessor of Politicsand InternationalAffairs at PrincetonUniversity; during1991-92, he is an InternationalAffairs Fellow on the PolicyPlanning Staff at the U.S. State Department.He is authorof Reasons of State: Oil Politicsand the Capacities of American Govern- ment, and co-authorof The State; he is currentlywriting a bookabout the international spread of policy doctrines. The authors would like to acknowledge helpful comments and suggestions by Henry Bienen, Matthew Evangelista, Andrew Farkas, Sam Kim, Rey Koslowski, Charles Kupchan, David Meyer,Henry Nau, Alvin Rubinstein,Stephen Walt,and WilliamWohlforth. Research assistance was provided by GeoffreyHerrera and Naomi Mobed. Research for this paper was supported by the Peter B. Lewis Fund and the Center of InternationalStudies, Princeton. 1. For overviews of Soviet foreignpolicy change, see Matthew Evangelista, "The New Soviet Approach to Security,"World Policy Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Fall 1986), pp. 561-599; RobertLegvold, "The Revolutionin Soviet ForeignPolicy," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Americaand the World, 1988/89),pp. 82-98; David Holloway, "State, Society, and the Military Under Gorbachev," InternationalSecurity, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Winter 1989/90),pp. 5-24; JackSnyder, "The Gorbachev Revolution: A Waning of Soviet Expansionism?" InternationalSecurity, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Winter 1987/88),pp. 93-131; William Hyland, The Cold War Is Over (New York: Knopf, 1990); Michael MccGwire, Perestroikaand SovietNational Security(Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1991); David Armstrongand Erik Goldstein, eds., The End ofthe Cold War(London: Frank Cass, 1990); Andrei V. Kozyrev, "The New Soviet AttitudeToward the United Nations," The WashingtonQuarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Summer 1990), pp. 41-53. InternationalSecurity, Winter 1991/92 (Vol. 16, No. 3) (C 1991 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and of the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology. 74 The InternationalSources of SovietChange j 75 conflict,the possibilityof change in the communistworld, and the relative strengthsof the competing camps.2 Not only have these changes been sweeping and unexpected, but they have been peaceful as well, at least at the internationallevel. Many students of Great Power politics have long held that sudden and significantchanges in the status of Great Powers, particularlyauthoritarian ones, are likely to be violent.3In the modern state system, it is hard to find a precedent for sudden and peaceful change in the status of a central Great Power and in the patternand intensityof inter-staterivalry. The half centuryof Cold War, markedby unexpected stabilityand peace among the Great Powers, has been labeled the "long peace."4 The postwar period has now also experienced "major peaceful change." Given the centralityof the Cold War over the last forty-fiveyears and the importanceof the Soviet experimentin the twentiethcentury, explanations 2. The consensus of foreignpolicy elites in the West was that the East-Westconflict would be a semi-permanentfeature of world politics. As late as 1986 Zbigniew Brzezinski argued that "the American-Sovietconflict is not some temporaryaberration but a historicalrivalry that will long endure." Brzezinski, Game Plan: A GeostrategicFramework for the Conduct of the U.S.-Soviet Contest(Boston: Atlantic,1986), p. xiii. Colin Gray argued that "the East-Westconflict is (forall relevantpolicy-related purposes) a permanentfeature of internationalrelations." Gray, The Geo- politicsof the Nuclear Era: Heartlands,Rimlands, and theTechnological Revolution (New York: Crane, Russak, 1977), emphasis in original. "Profound differencesand severe competitionwill surely continue to mark U.S.-Soviet relations," wrote Robert S. McNamara and Hans A. Bethe, "Re- ducing the Risk of Nuclear War," Atlantic,July 1985, p. 47. Only fifteenyears ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan worriedthat Western ideas and institutionswere becoming increasinglymarginalized in world history.Moynihan, "The United States in Opposition," Commentary,Vol. 59, No. 3 (March 1975). Jeane Kirkpatrickargued that totalitarianregimes such as the Soviet Union were incapable of reform.Jeane Kirkpatrick,"Dictatorships and Double Standards," Commentary,Vol. 68, No. 5 (November 1979), pp. 34-45. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, many in the West saw a Soviet strategicand geopolitical juggernaut. Henry Kissinger argued in 1978 that because of "the vulnerabilityof our strategicforces . [Soviet] willingness to run risks . must expo- nentiallyincrease." The next five years, he said, were going to be "our period of maximum danger." U.S. Senate, Committeeon Foreign Relations, The SALT II Treaty,96th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office [U.S. GPO], 1979), pt. 3, pp. 224-225. 3. The problem of peaceful change in Great Power systems is a central proposition of realist internationaltheory. As E.H. Carr put it, "normally,the threatof war, tacit or overt, seems a necessarycondition for important political changes in the internationalsphere." Carr,The Twenty Years Crisis,1919-1939 (London: MacMillan, 1939), p. 216. Similarly,Robert Gilpin argues that "throughouthistory the primarymeans of resolving the disequilibriumbetween the structure of the internationalsystem and the redistributionof power has been war." Gilpin, War and Changein WorldPolitics (New York: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1981), p. 197. See also JackS. Levy, "Declining Power and the PreventiveMotivation for War," WorldPolitics, Vol. 40, No. 1 (October 1987), pp. 82-107. 4. JohnLewis Gaddis, The Long Peace: Inquiresinto the History of the Cold War(New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1987); Charles W. Kegley, Jr.,ed., The Long PostwarPeace: ContendingExplana- tionsand Projections(New York: HarperCollins, 1991). InternationalSecurity 16:3 | 76 of these events are of central concern to social scientistsand historiansas well as makersof foreign policy.5 Thus thelong and contentiousdebate over the originsand strategyof the Cold War is being replaced by a debate about its end.6 Because Western knowledge of internal Soviet deliberations and motives remains incomplete and because events of this magnitude are the product of the conjunction of many forces,the debate over the end of the Cold War,like the debate over its origins,is likelyto be long and inconclusive. At the heart of this debate is a question with far-reachingpractical and theoreticalimplications: what are the sources of the Soviet crisisand how do we account for the directionsof policy change? At the outset, it is useful to distinguish between the question of what caused the Soviet crisisand the question of what caused the responses.Many students of Soviet politicsargue that both the crisis and the responses are the product of essentiallyinternal developments-the failureof socialism and the reformimpulses it generated. In this view, the new Soviet foreignpolicy has been primarilydriven by the requirementsof domestic reform.7 The propositionof this paper is thatrecent changes in Soviet foreignpolicy behavior (and some domestic behavior) can be explained as a product of the changing characterof the Soviet Union's externalenvironment. The Soviet environmenthas evolved slowly but profoundlyover the last half century. The two most importantfeatures of the Soviet Union's new environment, nuclear weapons and the multi-facetedliberal capitalist system of states,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 “The Insular Advantage: Geography and the Durability of American
    “The Insular Advantage: Geography and the Durability of American Alliances” John M. Schuessler Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University Joshua R. Shifrinson Frederik S. Pardee School of Global Studies, Boston University October 2018 Abstract: President Donald Trump has not been shy about playing hard-ball with close allies. This has led to concerns that Trump poses a unique threat to American alliances. Theoretically, these concerns are consistent with an influential line of argument that points to strategic restraint and reassurance – via binding institutions - as what sets American alliances apart. The fact of the matter is that Trump is not the first American president to play hard-ball with close allies, which leads to a two-part puzzle: What explains the United States’ track record of alliance coercion? And how has its alliance network remained so robust, given this track record? Our argument centers on geography, specifically the fact that the United States is the insular power par excellence. Insularity, we argue, affords the United States two strategic advantages. First, it is free to roam. Second, it is an attractive security provider for states in geopolitically crowded neighborhoods. Together, these advantages account for the United States’ track record of alliance coercion, as well as the limited damage that has been done to core alliances in the process. We demonstrate the value-added of our argument with a case study from the early Cold War, during NATO's formative period. From his election campaign onward, President Donald Trump has not been shy about playing hard-ball with even close allies.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Essay
    Review Essay Toward an Old New Paradigm in American International Relations by Karl Walling Karl Walling is a professor in the Strategy and Policy Department at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, RI. He is also a FPRI Senior Scholar. Daniel H. Deudney, Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village (Princeton: University Press, 2007). ]NELID$[T David C. Hendrickson, Union, Nation, or Empire: The American Debate over International Relations, 1789–1941 (Kansas: University Press, 2009). [TD$INLE] David C. Hendrickson, Peace Pact: The Lost World of the American Founding (Kansas: University Press, 2003). [TD$INLE] # 2011 Published by Elsevier Limited on behalf of Foreign Policy Research Institute. Spring 2011 | 325 Review Essay George C. Herring, From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776 (Oxford: University Press, 2008). [TD$INLE] Walter L. Hixson, The Myth of American Diplomacy (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008). [TD$INLE] How Americans study the history of their foreign relations is changing almost as rapidly as the international environment. In this review, we see Walter L. Hixson applying intellectually fashionable critical theory to American diplo- macy and George C. Herring inviting a host of non-state actors on to the diplomatic stage. Together, David C. Hendrickson and Daniel H. Deudney come close to (re)inventing a discipline by treating American foreign policy as a particular species of a much larger and older intellectual tradition dating back at least as far as ancient Greece. Perhaps for this reason, Deudney’s book was awarded the prize for the best book of the decade by the International Studies Association.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Liberal World Order Will Survive G
    ROUNDTABLE: RISING POWERS AND THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER Why the Liberal World Order Will Survive G. John Ikenberry he international order built and led by the United States and its part- ners is in crisis. In the Middle East, East Asia, and even in Western T Europe, long-standing regional orders are in transition or breaking down. Global international agreements and institutions—across the realms of trade, arms control, environment, human rights—seem to be weakening. For seventy years the United States has stood at the center of a Western-oriented, liberal international system, organized around openness, rules, and multilateral cooperation. After the cold war this American liberal hegemonic order spread outward and seemed to offer the world a universal logic for global politics. But that unipolar moment has now passed. Today, the United States and the Western industrial democracies, roiled by nationalist and populist upheavals, have turned inward and appear less committed to their own post-war liberal international project. The crisis of the American-led international order would seem to open up new opportunities for rising states—notably China, India, and other non-Western developing countries—to reshape the global order. But in what ways are rising states seeking to reform or reorganize the rules and institutions of the post-war era? Do they seek to rise up and integrate into the existing international order or do they seek to transform it? Are they “stakeholder” or “revisionist” states? Over the past decade, these questions have stood at the center of debates about the future of the global system. Indeed, the Obama administration placed the chal- lenge of integrating rising states at the center of its foreign policy.
    [Show full text]
  • ECSP Report 3
    FOREWORD by P.J . Simmons, Editor ust over two years ago, then U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Madeleine K. Albright Jargued that “environmental degradation is not simply an irritation, but a real threat to our national security.” As Secretary of State, Ms. Albright has already indicated that she intends to build upon the pathbreaking initia- tive of her predecessor, Warren Christopher, to make environmental issues “part of the mainstream of American foreign policy.” On Earth Day 1997, Albright issued the State Department’s first annual report on “Environmen- tal Diplomacy: the Environment and U.S. Foreign Policy.” In it, Secretary Albright asserted that global environ- mental damage “threatens the health of the American people and the future of our economy” and that “environ- mental problems are often at the heart of the political and economic challenges we face around the world.” Noting that “we have moved beyond the Cold War definition of the United States’ strategic interests,” Vice President Gore argued the Department’s report “documents an important turning point in U.S. foreign policy— a change the President and I strongly support.” Similar sentiments expressed by officials in the United States and abroad indicate the growing interest in the interactions among environmental degradation, natural re- source scarcities, population dynamics, national interests and security.* The breadth and diversity of views and initiatives represented in this issue of the Environmental Change and Security Project Report reflect the advances in research, contentious political debates and expanding parameters of this important field of academic and policy inquiry. As a neutral forum for discussion, the Report includes articles asserting strong connections between environment and security as well as more skeptical analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • Stanton Nuclear Security Fellows Seminar
    Stanton Nuclear Security Fellows Seminar PANEL 2: The Uses of History 1. Jonathan Hunt, RAND The Bargain: The United States, Global Nuclear Order, and the Last War, 1956-1975 Objectives: The global nuclear regime is the culmination of efforts to manage nuclear technology internationally. The original meanings of the treaties that inaugurated the regime, which for interpretive purposes have been identified as the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT), the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco, which denuclearized Latin America and the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), are rooted in how and why they were first brokered. This book situates these international agreements in their original contexts, most notably the Cold War, decolonization, development and the United Nations. It also advances a historical theory of states’ attitudes toward nuclear weapons and correspondingly proliferation, which holds that a society’s memory of what Philip Bobbitt calls epochal wars and which I style “last wars,” frames how it views the relationship between sovereignty, national security and international order.1 Overview: The world’s states built a global regime to manage the development and dissemination of nuclear weapons from 1956 to 1975, when climbing sales of nuclear reactors and a drumbeat of nuclear crises at hotspots around the world convinced many that multilateral and international measures were needed to manage the atom. Three nuclear powers—the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom—worked together and within an international community then emerging from decolonization to devise common rules and collective arrangements for nuclear security. Three solutions were identified: a nuclear-test ban, regional pacts to keep nuclear weapons out of certain neighborhoods and a global agreement to forbid new states from acquiring them.
    [Show full text]
  • Can the World Be Governed?
    Can the World Be Governed? Studies in International Governance is a research and policy analysis series from the Centre for International Governance Innovation (cigi) and WLU Press. Titles in the series provide timely consideration of emerging trends and current challenges in the broad field of international governance. Representing diverse perspectives on important global issues, the series will be of interest to students and academics while serving also as a reference tool for policy-makers and experts engaged in policy discussion. To reach the greatest possible audience and ultimately shape the policy dialogue, each volume will be made available both in print through WLU Press and, twelve months after pub- lication, accessible for free online through the igloo Network under the Creative Com- mons License. Can theWorld Be Governed? Possibilities for Effective Multilateralism *** Alan S. Alexandroff, editor Wilfrid Laurier University Press acknowledges the financial support of the Government of Canada through its Book Publishing Industry Development Program for its publishing activities. Wilfrid Laurier University Press acknowledges the financial support of the Centre for International Gov- ernance Innovation. The Centre for International Governance Innovation gratefully acknowl- edges support for its work program from the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Can the world be governed? : possibilities for effective multilateralism / Alan S. Alexandroff, editor. (Studies in international governance series) Co-published by: Centre for International Governance Innovation. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-55458-041-5 1. International organization. 2. International cooperation. 3. International rela- tions. 4. International economic relations. 5. Security, International.
    [Show full text]
  • Honours Thesis Game Theory and the Metaphor of Chess in the Late Cold
    Honours Thesis Game Theory and the Metaphor of Chess in the late Cold War Period o Student number: 6206468 o Home address: Valeriaan 8 3417 RR Montfoort o Email address: [email protected] o Type of thesis/paper: Honours Thesis o Submission date: March 29, 2020 o Thesis supervisor: Irina Marin ([email protected]) o Number of words: 18.291 o Page numbers: 55 Abstract This thesis discusses how the game of chess has been used as a metaphor for the power politics between the United States of America and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, particularly the period of the Reagan Doctrine (1985-1989). By looking at chess in relation to its visual, symbolic and political meanings, as well in relation to game theory and the key concepts of polarity and power politics, it argues that, although the ‘chess game metaphor’ has been used during the Cold War as a presentation for the international relations between the two superpowers in both cultural and political endeavors, the allegory obscures many nuances of the Cold War. Acknowledgment This thesis has been written roughly from November 2019 to March 2020. It was a long journey, and in the end my own ambition and enthusiasm got the better of me. The fact that I did three other courses at the same time can partly be attributed to this, but in many ways, I should have kept my time-management and planning more in check. Despite this, I enjoyed every moment of writing this thesis, and the subject is still captivating to me.
    [Show full text]
  • Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village, Daniel H
    Reviews Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village, Daniel H. Deudney (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006), 384 pp., $35 cloth, $24.95 paper. With Bounding Power, Daniel Deudney Long in gestation, Bounding Power is a makes a masterly contribution to the ren- vigorously argued and sophisticated book, aissance of classical political theory in which contains a number of important contemporary thought about world poli- strands of discussion that combine to tics; in this regard he follows Michael make the case for what Deudney labels ‘‘re- Doyle and others in demonstrating how a publican security theory.’’ One important fresh reading of the historical traditions strand of the book is its reconstruction of that lie behind contemporary theoretical the concepts of anarchy (an absence of formulations can generate new per- authoritative order) and hierarchy (order spectives on both theory and practice. In established through subordination), and the case of Doyle’s work, a key theme has their reorientation around Deudney’s new been exploring the intellectual roots of formulation, ‘‘negarchy,’’ characterized by liberalism in international relations and the presence of mutual restraints with a thecontoursofliberalpeacetheory—the primary role in generating ordered rela- idea that liberal democracies are not tionships. Two of the heroes of Deudney’s disposed to go to war against each other. intellectual reconstruction are Hobbes and For Deudney, meanwhile, the central Locke. Hobbes develops his argument for subject is republicanism, and in particular sovereign power as a means by which to the idea that the republican tradition depart from anarchy, whereas Locke ar- of thought about security—with its re- gues for the need to enhance freedom cognition of the interplay of changing without jeopardizing law and order.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fallacy of Nuclear Deterrence
    THE FALLACY OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE LCol J.P.P. Ouellet JCSP 41 PCEMI 41 Exercise Solo Flight Exercice Solo Flight Disclaimer Avertissement Opinions expressed remain those of the author and Les opinons exprimées n’engagent que leurs auteurs do not represent Department of National Defence or et ne reflètent aucunement des politiques du Canadian Forces policy. This paper may not be used Ministère de la Défense nationale ou des Forces without written permission. canadiennes. Ce papier ne peut être reproduit sans autorisation écrite. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as © Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, représentée par represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2015. le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2015. CANADIAN FORCES COLLEGE – COLLÈGE DES FORCES CANADIENNES JCSP 41 – PCEMI 41 2014 – 2015 EXERCISE SOLO FLIGHT – EXERCICE SOLO FLIGHT THE FALLACY OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE LCol J.P.P. Ouellet “This paper was written by a student “La présente étude a été rédigée par un attending the Canadian Forces College stagiaire du Collège des Forces in fulfilment of one of the requirements canadiennes pour satisfaire à l'une des of the Course of Studies. The paper is a exigences du cours. L'étude est un scholastic document, and thus contains document qui se rapporte au cours et facts and opinions, which the author contient donc des faits et des opinions alone considered appropriate and que seul l'auteur considère appropriés et correct for the subject. It does not convenables au sujet. Elle ne reflète pas necessarily reflect the policy or the nécessairement la politique ou l'opinion opinion of any agency, including the d'un organisme quelconque, y compris le Government of Canada and the gouvernement du Canada et le ministère Canadian Department of National de la Défense nationale du Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Of the Conventional Wisdom
    M A SS A C H USE tt S I N S T I T U T E O F T EC H NOLOGY M A SS A C H USE tt S I N S T I T U T E O F T EC H NOLOGY April 2008 MI T C EN T E R F O R I N T ERN at ION A L St U D IES 08-04 of the Conventional Wisdom The Audit of Wilson, Bush, and the Conventional Wisdom Evolution of Liberal Foreign Policy In this series of essays, MIT’s Center Tony Smith for International Studies tours the Tufts University horizon of conventional wisdoms that define U.S. foreign policy, and put them to the test of data and history. By subjecting particularly well-accepted he first subject to discuss in considering the future of the liberal inter- ideas to close scrutiny, our aim is Tnationalist agenda is the importance of the democratization project to re-engage policy and opinion leaders on topics that are too easily passing to the definition of Wilsonianism. The second is the meaning of multilat- such scrutiny. We hope that this will lead to further debate and inquiries, eralism. In the first case, Thomas Knock and Anne-Marie Slaughter argue with a result we can all agree on: in a forthcoming volume that democratization was never an important part better foreign policies that lead to a more peaceful and prosperous world. of Wilsonianism; that, instead, multilateralism is the key to liberal interna- Authors in this series are available to the press and policy community.
    [Show full text]
  • Daniel Deudney on Mixed Ontology, Planetary Geopolitics, and Republican Greenpeace
    Theory Talks Presents THEORY TALK #60 DANIEL DEUDNEY ON MIXED ONTOLOGY, PLANETARY GEOPOLITICS, AND REPUBLICAN GREENPEACE Theory Talks is an interactive forum for discussion of debates in International Relations with an emphasis of the underlying theoretical issues. By frequently inviting cutting-edge specialists in the field to elucidate their work and to explain current developments both in IR theory and real-world politics, Theory Talks aims to offer both scholars and students a comprehensive view of the field and its most important protagonists. Citation: Schouten, P. (2013) ‘Theory Talk #60: Daniel Deudney on Mixed Ontology, Planetary Geopolitics, and Republican Greenpeace’, Theory Talks, http://www.theory- talks.org/2013/11/theory-talk-60_285.html (20-11-2013) WWW.THEORY-TALKS.ORG DANIEL DEUDNEY ON MIXED ONTOLOGY, PLANETARY GEOPOLITICS, AND REPUBLICAN GREENPEACE World politics increasingly abrasions with the limits of state-centric thinking, faced as the world is with a set of issues that affect not only us collectively as mankind, but also the planet itself. While much of IR theorizing seems to shirk such realizations, the work of Daniel Deudney has consistently engaged with the complex problems engendered by the entanglements of nuclear weapons, the planetary environment, space exploration, and the kind of political associations that might help us to grapple with our fragile condition as humanity-in-the world. In this elaborate Talk, Deudney—amongst others—lays out his understanding of the fundamental forces that drive both planetary political progress and problems; discusses the kind of ontological position needed to appreciate these problems; and argues for the merits of a republican greenpeace model to political organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Disease, Ecology, and National Security in the Era of Globalization
    Contagion and Chaos Disease, Ecology, and National Security in the Era of Globalization Andrew T. Price-Smith The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England © 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or informa- tion storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. For information on quantity discounts, email [email protected]. Set in Sabon by SNP Best-set Typesetter Ltd., Hong Kong. Printed on recycled paper and bound in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Price-Smith, Andrew T. Contagion and chaos: disease, ecology, and national security in the era of globalization / Andrew T. Price-Smith. p. ; cm. Sequel to: The health of nations / Andrew T. Price-Smith. c 2002. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-262-16248-7 (hardcover: alk. paper)—ISBN 978-0-262-66203-1 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Communicable diseases—History. 2. Communicable diseases—Political aspects. 3. Communicable diseases—Social aspects. 4. National security. 5. Security, International. 6. Diseases and history. I. Price-Smith, Andrew T. Health of nations. II. Title. [DNLM: 1. Communicable Diseases, Emerging-prevention & control. 2. Disease Outbreaks—history. 3. Environmental Health. 4. Health Policy. 5. Security Measures. WA 100 P946c 2009] RA643.P73 2009 362.196'9—dc22 2008021363 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 Theory and Exegesis: On Health and the Body Politic Most of the change we think we see in life Is due to truths being in and out of favor —Robert Frost, “The Black Cottage” My analysis does not seek to explain all possible outcomes related to the effects of disease on structures of governance, but rather to generate plausible analytical relationships between variables that will permit further empirical testing and refi nement.
    [Show full text]