DOCSLIB.ORG

Book Reviews on Global Economy and Geopolitical Readings Esadegeo, Under the Supervision of Professor Javier Solana 3 and Professor Javier Santiso

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Book Reviews on Global Economy and Geopolitical Readings Esadegeo, Under the Supervision of Professor Javier Solana 3 and Professor Javier Santiso Book Reviews on global economy and geopolitical readings ESADEgeo, under the supervision of Professor Javier Solana 3 and Professor Javier Santiso 1 The Future of Power Nye Jr., Joseph (2011), New York: PublicAffairs In a great many transnational affairs, giving power to others can help us to attain our own goals. In this world, networks and connections become an important source of power. A narrative of intelligent power for the 21st century does not consist in maximising power or preserving hegemony. It consists in finding mechanisms to combine resources and so achieve successful strategies in the new context of the diffusion of power and “the rise of the rest". Basic idea and opinion In this book, Joseph Nye 1) explores what power means; 2) analyses the geopolitical stage of the 21st century, marked by fundamental shifts of power; 3) sets forth the strategy for turning power into successful results; and 4) shows how US leadership will be affected by the new power and context, characterised by a globalised, interdependent world with increasingly porous borders, in which the US will have to cooperate and forge alliances in order to achieve its objectives. And this, according to the author, will be the main challenge facing US leadership after the economic crisis. Contrary to the vision of many positions today, Nye concludes that the US is not in decline before the re-emergence of other countries such as China and India — GDP should not be the only indicator for making future projections — but if the US wants to manage “the rise of the rest” correctly, it must know how to select the right power strategy depending on the context. This will only be possible by means of intelligent power: a combination of hard power (military and economic coercion) and soft power (persuasion and attraction). The author Joseph S. Nye Jr. is a Professor at Harvard University and former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He graduated from Princeton University, went on to study at the University of Oxford, and took his PhD at Harvard University. 2 He was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in the Clinton Administration, Chair of the National Intelligence Council and Deputy Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and Technology. One of the most important theories to have earned him his current prestige as a political scientist is that which he developed around the idea of what he calls “soft power”. Power The concept of power is elusive and difficult to measure. And its definition, like that of many other ideas, is not exempt from difficulty. For Nye, the formulation of a political concept of power must always take into account who achieves what, and how, when and where they do so. Resources count, because power is conveyed by means of resources, be they tangible or intangible; but they do not guarantee success on their own. The conversion of power constitutes an essential variable if one wishes to obtain results from resources. For this reason, given that results take precedence over resources, the author considers that more attention should be paid to context and strategy as opposed to resources. Context: transition of power and diffusion of power The world today is distributed in a pattern that resembles a complex three- dimensional game of chess. On the top board, military power is largely unipolar and will probably remain so for some time. On the middle board, corresponding to economic power, shifts of power are taking place from one dominant State to one or more other States, with the US, Europe, Japan and China as key actors, and others that are up and coming. This level is now multipolar. The bottom board is the sphere of transnational relations. It lies beyond governmental control and is played out by such diverse actors as companies, NGOs and terrorist organisations. It also includes new challenges such as pandemics and climate change. Power on this level is so diffuse that it makes no sense to talk of unipolarity, multipolarity or hegemony. The transition of power from one State to another is a familiar event in history, and less complex to manage that the diffusion of power. It is not unthinkable that the growth of China and India and the relative decline of the US might generate instability, but it is a problem with precedents, and lessons can be drawn from history. Many analysts conclude that the rise of Germany and the fear it engendered in Britain contributed towards the outbreak of the First World War. Yet on the other hand the US overtook Britain at the end of the 19th century without conflict. Although confrontation is not inevitable in shifts of power, much depends on how we handle it. Diffusion of power is a process that, in the opinion of the author, is more novel and difficult to manage. In the global information age, more and more actions occur beyond the control of governments, even the most powerful ones. Information, once reserved exclusively for governments, is now available for mass consumption. Barriers 3 to entry into world politics have been lowered, and now non-State actors have a strong presence in the international arena. Hackers and cybercriminals cause thousands of millions of dollars in damage to governments and companies. And a pandemic spread by a bird can kill more people than the First or the Second World War. The nation-State is likely to continue to be the dominant institution for some time to come, but the information age and globalisation is altering the geopolitical stage in such a way that States find it increasingly difficult to provide security (even the US, which will have to cooperate if it wants to achieve its objectives). It is not enough to think in terms of power over others. It is also necessary to think in terms of power with others in order to reach goals. Intelligent strategy: military power, economic power and soft power For the author, in today’s three-dimensional world — at the same time unipolar, multipolar and apolar — there is little sense in looking at the world through the lens of realism (focusing on the first level of the board) or through that of liberalism (focusing on the other two levels). What is required is a broad intelligent strategy that is capable of managing the various distributions of power in each sphere and understanding the pros and cons of each type of power. In power relationships there are several strategies to alter the behaviour of the other party: order (coercion), the capacity to control agendas (persuasion), and the ability to influence the preferences of others without the need to order them to alter their behaviour (attraction). In international politics, these last two power strategies, corresponding to soft power (institutions, ideas, values, cultures, and the perceived legitimacy of policies), belong to the third dimension, that of transnational relations, whereas hard power (force and money) belong to the military and economic dimensions respectively. In today’s world, soft power can be much more effective and less costly than hard power. Nowadays, the State that wields the biggest army is not necessarily that which prevails over the rest. Resorting to military force to achieve one’s objectives is more complicated than it used to be, not only for reasons of cost and public opinion but also because the geopolitical landscape has changed. By way of example: in 1853, Commodore Matthew Perry sailed into the Japanese harbour of Shimoda and threatened to bomb Japan unless it opened up its ports to trade. Today, the scope and dimension of globalisation would prevent resolving trade disputes between the US and Japan through military solutions. Nevertheless, the fact that military power is not always sufficient to decide particular situations does not mean it has lost all usefulness. Military power will continue to be important because it helps to structure world politics and influences the political calculations of players. 4 The same can be said of economic power. At the end of the Cold War, many analysts proclaimed that geoeconomics would replace geopolitics. Economic power would be the key to achieving success in the political sphere. It is true that a sound and growing economy is the foundation for all the instruments of power. Furthermore, economic instruments — such as sanctions and aid — will be crucial in this century, as they are often the most efficient instruments in terms of relative costs. But in the author’s opinion it is a mistake to say that the 21st century will be the era of geoeconomics. The diffusion of power to non-State actors, including transnational companies, places limits on the effectiveness of the use of economic instruments in State strategies. In the information and globalisation age, the winning State (or non-State actor) will be the one with the best story. Power will be defined by innovation, technology and new relationships. For this reason, the author underlines, soft power will become an important factor towards achieving objectives. Although soft power is more complex to incorporate into a government strategy than hard power — its results are long-term and difficult to quantify, establish and/or control — when a government is sensitive to structural goals and values, such as the promotion of democracy, human rights and freedom, soft power is in fact superior to hard power, as the author frequently emphasises. This does not mean that the strategy of soft power replaces hard power. Soft power, like economic and military power, also presents certain limits, for example when it comes to resolving a nuclear proliferation dispute. A three-level world requires a strategy that tackles all three levels simultaneously.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reaching Beyond the Ivory Tower: a “How To” Manual *
    Reaching Beyond the Ivory Tower: A “How To” Manual * Daniel Byman and Matthew Kroenig Security Studies (forthcoming, June 2016) *For helpful comments on earlier versios of this article, the authors would like to thank Michael C. Desch, Rebecca Friedman, Bruce Jentleson, Morgan Kaplan, Marc Lynch, Jeremy Shapiro, and participants in the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security Speaker Series at the University of Chicago, participants in the Nuclear Studies Research Initiative Launch Conference, Austin, Texas, October 17-19, 2013, and members of a Midwest Political Science Association panel. Particular thanks to two anonymous reviewers and the editors of Security Studies for their helpful comments. 1 Joseph Nye, one of the rare top scholars with experience as a senior policymaker, lamented “the walls surrounding the ivory tower never seemed so high” – a view shared outside the academy and by many academics working on national security.1 Moreover, this problem may only be getting worse: a 2011 survey found that 85 percent of scholars believe the divide between scholars’ and policymakers’ worlds is growing. 2 Explanations range from the busyness of policymakers’ schedules, a disciplinary shift that emphasizes theory and methodology over policy relevance, and generally impenetrable academic prose. These and other explanations have merit, but such recommendations fail to recognize another fundamental issue: even those academic works that avoid these pitfalls rarely shape policy.3 Of course, much academic research is not designed to influence policy in the first place. The primary purpose of academic research is not, nor should it be, to shape policy, but to expand the frontiers of human knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • International Relations in a Changing World: a New Diplomacy? Edward Finn
    INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN A CHANGING WORLD: A NEW DIPLOMACY? EDWARD FINN Edward Finn is studying Comparative Literature in Latin and French at Princeton University. INTRODUCTION The revolutionary power of technology to change reality forces us to re-examine our understanding of the international political system. On a fundamental level, we must begin with the classic international relations debate between realism and liberalism, well summarised by Stephen Walt.1 The third paradigm of constructivism provides the key for combining aspects of both liberalism and realism into a cohesive prediction for the political future. The erosion of sovereignty goes hand in hand with the burgeoning Information Age’s seemingly unstoppable mechanism for breaking down physical boundaries and the conceptual systems grounded upon them. Classical realism fails because of its fundamental assumption of the traditional sovereignty of the actors in its system. Liberalism cannot adequately quantify the nebulous connection between prosperity and freedom, which it assumes as an inherent truth, in a world with lucrative autocracies like Singapore and China. Instead, we have to accept the transformative power of ideas or, more directly, the technological, social, economic and political changes they bring about. From an American perspective, it is crucial to examine these changes, not only to understand their relevance as they transform the US, but also their effects in our evolving global relationships.Every development in international relations can be linked to some event that happened in the past, but never before has so much changed so quickly at such an expansive global level. In the first section of this article, I will examine the nature of recent technological changes in diplomacy and the larger derivative effects in society, which relate to the future of international politics.
    [Show full text]
  • The 'Great Debates' in International Relations Theory
    The ‘Great Debates’ in international relations theory Written by IJ Benneyworth This PDF is auto-generated for reference only. As such, it may contain some conversion errors and/or missing information. For all formal use please refer to the official version on the website, as linked below. The ‘Great Debates’ in international relations theory https://www.e-ir.info/2011/05/20/the-%e2%80%98great-debates%e2%80%99-in-international-relations-theory/ IJ BENNEYWORTH, MAY 20 2011 International relations in the most basic sense have existed since neighbouring tribes started throwing rocks at, or trading with, each other. From the Peloponnesian War, through European poleis to ultimately nation states, Realist trends can be observed before the term existed. Likewise the evolution of Liberalist thinking, from the Enlightenment onwards, expressed itself in calls for a better, more cooperative world before finding practical application – if little success – after The Great War. It was following this conflict that the discipline of International Relations (IR) emerged in 1919. Like any science, theory was IR’s foundation in how it defined itself and viewed the world it attempted to explain, and when contradictory theories emerged clashes inevitably followed. These disputes throughout IR’s short history have come to be known as ‘The Great Debates’, and though disputed it is generally felt there have been four, namely ‘Realism/Liberalism’, ‘Traditionalism/Behaviouralism’, ‘Neorealism/Neoliberalism’ and the most recent ‘Rationalism/Reflectivism’. All have had an effect on IR theory, some greater than others, but each merit analysis of their respective impacts. First we shall briefly explore the historical development of IR theory then critically assess each Debate before concluding.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Political Science Semester-IV (General Course)
    Department of Political Science By: Dr. Prafulla Kumar Das Semester-IV (General Course) DSC-1D (CC-4): Introduction to International Relations Credit 06 DSC1DT: Introduction to International Relations Course Content: 1. Approaches to International Relations b) Neo-Liberalism: Complex Interdependence (Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye) ( : Liberalism)) ও উপ উপ উ ও ও প , , প , , , উ উপ উ Liberalism উ liberalis উ । উ উ - ।উ ও প । উ ও উ । উ প , ও ও প । প ১৭৭৬ " "। ও , ও প , প । প , ও । উ ও উৎ ও প ও প উ উ প , প প ও প প ও উ ও , , ও ও ও , উ , ও , , ও । উ প , ও উ - ৎ , উ প , ও ও । Complex interdependence Complex interdependence in international relations is the idea put forth by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. The term "complex interdependence" was claimed by Raymond Leslie Buell in 1925 to describe the new ordering among economies, cultures and races. The very concept was popularized through the work of Richard N. Cooper (1968). With the analytical construct of complex interdependence in their critique of political realism, "Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye go a step further and analyze how international politics is transformed by interdependence" . The theorists recognized that the various and complex transnational connections and interdependencies between states and societies were increasing, while the use of military force and power balancing are decreasing but remain important. In making use of the concept of interdependence, Keohane and Nye also importantly differentiated between interdependence and dependence in analyzing the role of power in politics and the relations between international actors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Power
    Transcript The Future of Power Joseph Nye University Distinguished Service Professor, Harvard University Chair: Sir Jeremy Greenstock Former British Ambassador to the United Nations (1998-2003) 10 May 2011 The views expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of Chatham House, its staff, associates or Council. Chatham House is independent and owes no allegiance to any government or to any political body. It does not take institutional positions on policy issues. This document is issued on the understanding that if any extract is used, the speaker(s) and Chatham House should be credited, preferably with the details of the event. Where this document refers to or reports statements made by speakers at an event every effort has been made to provide a fair representation of their views and opinions, but the ultimate responsibility for accuracy lies with this document’s author(s). The published text of speeches and presentations may differ from delivery. Transcript: The Future of Power Joseph Nye: I’d like to be not a typical professor in the sense of not speaking in fifty-minute bytes at a time, but restrain myself and follow Jeremy’s good instruction. Having been a visitor to Ditchley a few times I know he runs a very tight ship. The argument that I make in this new book about the future of powers, that there are two large power shifts going on in this century. One, I call power transition, which is a shift of power among states, which is largely from West to East.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberalism in a Realist World: International Relations As an American Scholarly Tradition
    Liberalism in a Realist World: International Relations as an American Scholarly Tradition G. John Ikenberry The study of international relations (IR) is a worldwide pursuit with each country having its own theoretical orientations, preoccupations and debates. Beginning in the early twentieth century, the US created its own scholarly traditions of IR. Eventually, IR became an American social science with the US becoming the epicentre for a worldwide IR community engaged in a set of research programmes and theoretical debates. The discipline of IR emerged in the US at a time when it was the world’s most powerful state and a liberal great power caught in a struggle with illiberal rivals. This context ensured that the American theoretical debates would be built around both power and liberal ideals. Over the decades, the two grand projects of realism and liberalism struggled to define the agenda of IR in the US. These traditions have evolved as they attempted to make sense of contemporary developments, speak to strategic position of the US and its foreign policy, as well as deal with the changing fashions and stand- ards of social science. The rationalist formulations of realism and liberalism sparked reactions and constructivism has arisen to offer counterpoints to the rational choice theory. Keywords: International Relations Theory, Realism, Liberalism The study of International Relations (IR) is a worldwide pursuit but every country has its own theoretical orientations, preoccupations and debates. This is true for the American experience—and deeply so. Beginning in the early twentieth cen- tury, the US created its own scholarly traditions of IR.
    [Show full text]
  • Soft Power and Higher Education
    Joseph Nye Harvard University Soft Power and Higher Education SOFT POWER IS THE ABILITY to get what you want through attraction rather than through coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and foreign and domestic policies. When the United States’ policies are seen as legitimate in the eyes of others, our soft power is enhanced. Joseph Nye, dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard Universi- ty from 1995 to 2004, coined the term “soft power.” He describes how soft power differs from hard military strength and economic power, and why it is becoming more important than in the past—largely due to globalization and the communica- tions revolution. Nye suggests how higher education leaders might enhance Ameri- can soft power by helping to build a better understanding of the nature of power and increasing international student and cultural exchange programs. Soft Power Power comes in many guises. Although we may believe that the United States is the only superpower in a unipolar world, in reality the distri- bution of power resources in the contemporary information age varies greatly across different issues. Power always depends on its context— requiring a far more complex analysis than first meets the eye. World politics has become like a three-dimensional chess game in which one can win only by playing vertically as well as horizontally. On the top 11 board of classic military issues, the United Figure 1. States is indeed the only superpower Power with global military might and reach, Hard Soft and it makes sense to speak in tradition- Agenda al terms of unipolarity or hegemony.
    [Show full text]
  • Sovereignty and Power in a Networked World Order
    Sovereignty and Power in a Networked World Order ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER* [T]here is a separate and critical need for programs like this one-programs devoted to the real nitty gritty of law enforcement against international cartels, where frontline enforcers can meet one another and try to solve common practicalproblems. -Former Assistant Attorney GeneralJoel Klein, commenting on an internationalworkshop for antitrustregulators' I. INTRODUCTION Theorists, pundits, and policymakers all recognize that traditional conceptions of sovereignty are under assault. The result is a seemingly endless debate about the changing nature of sovereignty. What does it mean? Does it still exist? Is it useful? Louis Henkin laments the "S word," arguing that it now obstructs more than it accomplishes. 2 Stephen Krasner offers four different definitions of sovereignty-international legal sovereignty, Westphalian sovereignty, domestic sovereignty, and interdependence sovereignty; 3 Robert Keohane distinguishes between formal and "operational" sovereignty.4 * Dean, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University; President, American Society of International Law 2002-2004. J.D., 1985, Harvard Law School; D.Phil., 1992, Oxford University; M.Phil., 1982, Oxford University; B.A., 1982, Princeton University. This Article was adapted with permission from a chapter in the author's recent book, A NEW WORLD ORDER (Princeton Univ. Press, 2004). Specifically, Parts IV and V, and portions of Part III, were drawn from Chapter 5 of A NEW WORLD ORDER, while the surrounding material in Parts I, II, III and VI explore the implications of networked governance for traditional notions of power and sovereignty. The author would like to thank William Burke-White and Terry Murphy for invaluable assistance with this Article, as well as Gabriela Blum and Annecoos Wiersema for help with the underlying book chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Geopolitics and Geoeconomics: History and Contemporaneity in Zbginiew Brzezinski´S Thinking
    DOI 10.22491/1809-3191.v23n3.p554-588 GEOPOLITICS AND GEOECONOMICS: HISTORY AND CONTEMPORANEITY IN ZBGINIEW BRZEZINSKI´S THINKING Cristina Soreanu Pecequilo1 ABSTRACT US hegemony was established in 1945 and has been built over previous decades based on geopolitical and geoeconomic concepts, counting on the contribution of different thinkers. The goal of this article is to analyze the nature and origins of the reflections of one of those thinkers, Zbigniew Brzezinski, his contributions and impacts on the area of strategic studies based on his works, his tenure ahead of the National Security Council in the US and as a consultant for the White House. Along with the Introduction and Conclusion, the article presents a study regarding the 1950s and 1970s, focusing on Brzezinski´s early performance as an academic, his influence as analyst and strategist of the Cold War, the specific features of the American political system, the geopolitical and geoeconomic thinking of bipolarity and, finally, the post-Cold War world. Keywords: Geopolitics. Geoeconomics. United States. Zbigniew Brzezinski. 1 University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo - SP, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected] R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 23, n. 3, p. 554-588. set./dez. 2017. Cristina Soreanu Pecequilo 555 INTRODUÇÃO In May 2017, the death of Zbigniew Brzezinski (1928/2017), former United States (US) National Security Adviser in the Democratic Administration of Jimmy Carter (1977/1981), represented the closure of one of the most significant trajectories of the US strategic thinking. Brzezinski played a prominent role as a writer of periodicals, with appearances in cable media (CNN) and open television (major American networks ABC, NBC, CBS).
    [Show full text]
  • New Perspectives on American Grand Strategy New Perspectives on Colin Dueck American Grand Strategy a Review Essay
    New Perspectives on American Grand Strategy New Perspectives on Colin Dueck American Grand Strategy A Review Essay Robert J. Art, A Grand Strategy for America (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2003) G. John Ikenberry, ed., America Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2002) Charles A. Kupchan, The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-ªrst Century (New York: Knopf, 2002) Henry R. Nau, At Home Abroad: Identity and Power in American Foreign Policy (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2002) Joseph S. Nye Jr., The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002) Shortly after the end of the Cold War, a number of leading structural realists such as Kenneth Waltz, John Mearsheimer, and Christopher Layne predicted that America’s “unipolar moment” was likely to be short lived.1 Drawing on traditional balance of power theory, they suggested that America’s unparalleled status as the world’s only superpower would soon trigger widespread counterbalancing on the part of other major states. The policy implication was that Americans ought to play down their hegemonic pretensions and accommodate the inevitable transition toward a multipolar world order. Not only was a certain degree of strategic disengagement a policy prescription: It was the structural realist prediction for American grand strategy in the post–Cold War era. One decade later, a multipolar world order has yet to appear. Granted, American foreign policy is widely resented abroad, and other countries are de- Colin Dueck is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
    [Show full text]
  • Neo-Conservatism and Foreign Policy
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Fall 2009 Neo-conservatism and foreign policy Ted Boettner University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Boettner, Ted, "Neo-conservatism and foreign policy" (2009). Master's Theses and Capstones. 116. https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/116 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Neo-Conservatism and Foreign Policy BY TED BOETTNER BS, West Virginia University, 2002 THESIS Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Political Science September, 2009 UMI Number: 1472051 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI" UMI Microform 1472051 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberalism and World Politics Author(S): Michael W
    Liberalism and World Politics Author(s): Michael W. Doyle Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Dec., 1986), pp. 1151-1169 Published by: American Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1960861 . Accessed: 15/10/2011 20:37 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]. American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Political Science Review. http://www.jstor.org LIBERALISMAND WORLDPOLITICS MICHAEL W. DOYLE Johns Hopkins University Building on a growing literaturein internationalpolitical science, I reexamine the traditional liberal claim that governments founded on a respect for individualliberty exercise "restraint" and "peacefulintentions" in theirforeign policy. I look at three distinct theoreticaltraditions of liberalism,attributable to three theorists: Schumpeter,a democratic capitalist whose explanation of liberal pacifism we often invoke; Machiavelli, a classical republicanwhose glory is an imperialismwe often practice;and Kant, a liberalrepublican whose theory of internationalismbest accounts for what we are. Despite the contradictionsof liberalpacifism and liberalimperialism, I find, with Kant and other democraticrepublicans, that liberalismdoes leave a coherent legacy on foreign affairs.Liberal states are different.They are indeedpeaceful.
    [Show full text]