DOCSLIB.ORG

The Preemptive Paradox: the Rise of Great Powers & Management of The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Preemptive Paradox: the Rise of Great Powers & Management of The Syracuse University SURFACE Dissertations - ALL SURFACE December 2017 The Preemptive Paradox: The Rise of Great Powers & Management of the International System Jeffrey Treistman Syracuse University Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/etd Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Treistman, Jeffrey, "The Preemptive Paradox: The Rise of Great Powers & Management of the International System" (2017). Dissertations - ALL. 809. https://surface.syr.edu/etd/809 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the SURFACE at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations - ALL by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract: Since the beginning of the modern state system only a few select nations have achieved great power status. But what can account for their rise? The presence of existing great powers would suggest that aspiring states should encounter formidable obstacles that would render their success implausible. In some cases extant great powers sought to counter the rise of a new peer, but the historical record also reveals that incumbents sometimes did not contest the rise of potential competitors. Thus, great powers have pursued two divergent strategies: contestation and nonintervention. How then do great powers decide on which policy to implement? This dissertation advances the argument that a great power’s military strategy is premised on its national interests. It argues that the reason incumbent powers rarely preempt the rise of aspiring powers is because of the low level of threat they pose to states. Incumbent great powers are far more concerned about contemporary rival powers since they possess the immediate capacity to undermine a state’s interests. The Preemptive Paradox: The Rise of Great Powers & Management of the International System by Jeffrey Philip Treistman B.A., University of Colorado, 2003 M.P.P., Harvard University, 2010 M.A., Syracuse University, 2012 Dissertation Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science. Syracuse University December 2017 © Jeffrey Philip Treistman I. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 II. Preemptive Paradox Explained .................................................................................. 21 III. Prussia & Frederick the Great ................................................................................... 69 IV. United States & the Missing War ............................................................................ 118 V. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 161 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 173 iv 1 I. Introduction Since the beginning of the modern state system only a few select nations have achieved great power status.1 But what can account for their rise? The presence of existing great powers would suggest that aspiring states should encounter formidable obstacles that would render their success implausible.2 To be sure, existing great powers have an inherent security interest to foil the rise of peer competitors (Mearsheimer 2001, 236-237). The emergence of new powers is also assumed to usher 3 in geopolitical uncertainty and instability as a result of systemic transformation. It is therefore puzzling to find that many chose not to contest the rise of a new peer or take any countervailing action whatsoever. This dissertation therefore seeks to answer the following question: how do great powers respond to rising challengers? All great powers should have been compelled to thwart the rise of potential competitors given the threat they pose within the anarchical 4 international system. As a state augments its power it becomes more capable of launching a major war in order to satisfy its interests. “Simply put, the stronger and richer a state becomes, the more influence it wants and the more willing and able it will be to fight to further its interests” (Schweller 1999, 3). A counterstrategy would be to contest the rise of aspiring states as power differentials predict that incumbent forces should be fully capable of blocking new entrants. Even if a rising power was benign and 1 The state system is conventionally dated to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648. 2 Throughout this dissertation, I refer to a state that seeks great power status as a candidate great power (CGP) or an ‘aspirant.’ Meanwhile, the term ‘incumbent’ will often be used to refer to an existing great power (GP). 3 Zakaria (1998, 3) remarks that “almost every new addition to the ranks of the great powers has resulted in global instability and war.” 4 This notion is even reflected in other fields such as industrial organization theory: “Because competition destroys industry profits, an incumbent has more incentive to deter entry than an entrant has to enter” (Tirole 1989, 350). 2 sought to maintain the status quo, existing great powers can not be certain of future intentions. Although a state that aspires to achieve eventual great power status may not represent an immediate threat, long term security risks remain unpredictable. There is some evidence supporting this argument. Austria sought to counter Prussian expansionism just as Russia attempted to suppress increases in both Prussian and Japanese power. But the historical record also reveals that incumbents sometimes did not contest the rise of potential competitors. For example, Britain and France both opted not to take any action as Prussia emerged as a great power in the mid-eighteenth century and instead focused on balancing against one another. In other cases, great powers demonstrated indifference to the emergence of a new peer. For example, the United States achieved regional hegemony without encountering any resistance from the existing powers. Thus, great powers have pursued two divergent strategies: contestation and nonintervention. How then do great powers decide on which policy to implement? This dissertation advances the argument that a great power’s military strategy is premised on its national interests. Threats to existing interests or opportunities to advance its objectives influence a state’s military strategy. In this regard, existing great powers are most concerned about threats emanating from rival powers since they inherently possess the immediate capacity to undermine the security of others. In contrast, the rise of a new peer is less of a concern given they possess relatively weaker military capabilities. Thus, this dissertation will argue that the reason incumbent powers rarely preempt the rise of aspiring powers is because of the low level of threat they pose to states. Incumbent great powers are far more concerned about 3 contemporary rival powers since they possess the immediate capacity to undermine a state’s interests. The most perplexing task is providing an account for the absence of war between existing great powers and rising peers which alter the global distribution of power. In many respects, the absence of war is more puzzling and difficult to explain than the occurrence of war. “Identifying nonevents and then finding evidence to explain why they didn’t happen is challenging, and in some cases quixotic,” argues Jeffrey Meiser (2015, xi). Indeed, an objective of Meiser’s research is to provide an account as to why the most powerful state today – the United States – never faced any opposition to its initial rise to great power status. This dissertation not only builds up existing research concerning the absence of war with the United States but briefly examines other nonevents such as the failure to prevent the rise of China in the mid-twentieth century. There is a scarcity of research as to how existing powers responded to the rise of new peers. Related theories concern great power reaction to the hegemonic aspirations of their contemporaries but do not address earlier periods of relative growth. For example, much analysis is devoted to Bismark, Wilhelm II, and Hitler revisionism but not before such hegemonic attempts. Given this lacuna in the literature, my project seeks to shed light on the foreign policy decisions of great powers (GP) toward rising peers or what I call candidate great powers (CGP). These candidate great powers are marked by increases in military power, broad regional or global aspirations, and more assertive behavior on the world stage. How extant great powers respond to the emergence of these candidate great powers can help us understand varying incidents of peace and war. 4 An overarching goal of this study is to assess the general dynamics between great powers and rising states. Current theories of international relations do not provide adequate explanation of the relationship between these two state types. Most theories are restricted to interactions among great powers themselves and omit candidate great powers from consideration. Therefore, a fundamental objective of my research is to develop a generalizable theory of relations between great powers and candidate great powers. The temporal scope of the study focuses on the emergence of new great powers since the formation of the modern state system (conventionally dating back to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648) and without regard to geographic limitations.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Typologies of Realism
    Chinese Journal of International Politics, Vol. 1, 2006, 109–134 doi:10.1093/cjip/pol006 The Typologies of Realism Liu Feng* and Zhang Ruizhuang Much more than a single theory, realism is a school of thought containing numerous related branches. In recent years an outpour of debate and exchange within the realist tradition has captured the attention of scholars. Many scholars have attempted to create schemes classifying the different branches and threads of realist thought that have emerged, while others have introduced a wealth of new terminology. Unfortunately, as a result of these Downloaded from efforts, realist concepts have become obfuscated, resulting in much confusion, and ultimately erecting a barrier to intellectual progress in the field. The goal of this article is to help remove this barrier by clarifying the criteria for classifying different approaches to realist thought and presenting a more coherent classification scheme that will enhance the understanding of the http://cjip.oxfordjournals.org/ relationship between various strands of realist thought. The Debate Regarding the Classification of Types of Realism Since the 1980s, a number of new schools of thought, including by guest on May 28, 2014 constructivism, critical theory and post-modernism, have critiqued, and ultimately come to challenge, traditional schools of international relations theory such as realism and liberalism. Yet, as a result of sharp differences with respect to ontology, epistemology and methodology, exchange between these new schools and the more traditional mainstream schools have been quite limited. In stark contrast with this dearth of scholarly exchange across schools of thought, the intellectual debate and exchange of ideas within the realist school have flowered, giving birth to many new branches and sub-branches of realist thought.
    [Show full text]
  • How Technology Impacts Doctrine in Asymmetric Warfare
    0 How Technology Impacts Doctrine in Asymmetric Warfare Jeremiah Rozman Northfield Vermont Bachelors of Arts, University of Vermont, 2014 A Thesis presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of Foreign Affairs University of Virginia May, 2016 1 Abstract How does technology impact military doctrine, and how does this in turn impact political support for offensive, preventative or preemptive military action?1 I study defensive weapons systems, specifically focusing on missile defense in the theoretical context of technology and defense-based strategies as a whole. Through the study of Israel’s use of Iron Dome, I aim to demonstrate that technology can be an exogenous factor affecting military doctrine. Through careful case study analysis, I demonstrate that operationally successful defensive technologies can lead to the adoption of a defensive military doctrine by decreasing the political cost of inaction to the extent that allowing attrition becomes politically less costly than launching an offensive. Introduction A comparison of Israel’s two recent wars in Gaza, Operation Cast Lead in 2008/9 and Operation Protective Edge in 2014, indicates that the tactical success of Iron Dome, as a defensive military technology, can effect a change in military doctrine. The goal of this study is to demonstrate the effect of an unexpectedly successful defensive military technology on military doctrine, an effect which leads to prioritizing defense, allowing attrition, and moving away from a long-standing offense-based doctrine, specifically when dealing with asymmetric conflict. This study focuses on Israel, specifically in the Gaza theater of conflict and not in the Northern theater of conflict where Israel’s adversary, Hezbollah is 1 Preemptive war is defined as actor A launching a first strike in order to gain advantage in a situation where an attack by actor B is anticipated to be imminent.
    [Show full text]
  • Realism As Tragedy Reviewed Work(S): the Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John J
    Review: Realism as Tragedy Reviewed Work(s): The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John J. Mearsheimer Review by: Brian C. Schmidt Source: Review of International Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Jul., 2004), pp. 427-441 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097926 Accessed: 31-10-2017 23:07 UTC 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]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review of International Studies This content downloaded from 86.133.137.245 on Tue, 31 Oct 2017 23:07:43 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Review of International Studies (2004), 30, 427-441 Copyright ? British International Studies Association DOI: 10.1017IS0260210504006151 Realism as tragedy BRIAN C. SCHMIDT* John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W.W. Norton, 2001). In short, the real world remains a realist world.1 In 1948, Hans J. Morgenthau wrote his classic text, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, that was largely responsible for establishing realism as the prevailing theory in the field of International Relations (IR).2 In 1979, Kenneth N Waltz wrote an immensely influential book, Theory of International Politics, that resulted in a new structural version of realism - neorealism - becoming the dominant theory in IR.3 John J.
    [Show full text]
  • Major Powers and Global Contenders
    CHAPTER 2 Major Powers and Global Contenders A great number of historians and political scientists share the view that international relations cannot be well understood without paying attention to those states capable of making a difference. Most diplo- matic histories are largely histories of major powers as represented in modern classics such as A. J. P. Taylor’s The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848–1918, or Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. In political science, the main theories of international relations are essentially theories of major power behavior. The realist tradition, until recently a single paradigm in the study of international relations (Vasquez 1983), is based on the core assumptions of Morgenthau’s (1948) balance-of-power theory about major power behavior. As one leading neorealist scholar stated, “a general theory of international politics is necessarily based on the great powers” (Waltz 1979, 73). Consequently, major debates on the causes of war are centered on assumptions related to major power behavior. Past and present evidence also lends strong support for continuing interest in the major powers. Historically, the great powers partici- pated in the largest percentage of wars in the last two centuries (Wright 1942, 1:220–23; Bremer 1980, 79; Small and Singer 1982, 180). Besides wars, they also had the highest rate of involvement in international crises (Maoz 1982, 55). It is a compelling record for the modern history of warfare (since the Napoleonic Wars) that major powers have been involved in over half of all militarized disputes, including those that escalated into wars (Gochman and Maoz 1984, 596).
    [Show full text]
  • Realism and World Politics (IO-644) Monsoon 2013 Semester
    Centre for International Politics, Organisation and Disarmament School of International Studies Jawaharlal Nehru University Realism and World Politics (IO-644) Monsoon 2013 Semester Instructor: Prof. Rajesh Rajagopalan Room 216, SIS Building (Ph. 2670-4349) Email: Class Time: Tuesdays and Thursdays, 10:00 am-11:30 am Office Hours: One hour after class and by appointment Course Description Realism and its variants remain one of the most important and definitely the oldest of the theoretical approaches to the study of interstate politics. This course is designed to provide an intensive reading of recent Realist literature in international politics. This course is structured presuming you have some basic understanding of international political theory; reading and discussions will build on that base. It may be useful to revisit more introductory material from time to time, especially that relating to Realism and its variants. We will start with the some of the basic writings in the field and build up to some of the major debates, both within Realism as well as between Realists and other alternate theoretical approaches. However, by and large, we will focus on the Realist responses and writings rather than on challenges from other theoretical perspectives. Course Requirements and Grade Assessment All students are expected to actively participate in class discussions. All papers should be emailed to my email address above. a) You will be required to write two book/essay reviews. Each review should be at least 800 words in length. In order to avoid duplication, you are required to get prior approval for the essay you want to review.
    [Show full text]
  • John J. Mearsheimer: an Offensive Realist Between Geopolitics and Power
    John J. Mearsheimer: an offensive realist between geopolitics and power Peter Toft Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Østerfarimagsgade 5, DK 1019 Copenhagen K, Denmark. E-mail: [email protected] With a number of controversial publications behind him and not least his book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, John J. Mearsheimer has firmly established himself as one of the leading contributors to the realist tradition in the study of international relations since Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics. Mearsheimer’s main innovation is his theory of ‘offensive realism’ that seeks to re-formulate Kenneth Waltz’s structural realist theory to explain from a struc- tural point of departure the sheer amount of international aggression, which may be hard to reconcile with Waltz’s more defensive realism. In this article, I focus on whether Mearsheimer succeeds in this endeavour. I argue that, despite certain weaknesses, Mearsheimer’s theoretical and empirical work represents an important addition to Waltz’s theory. Mearsheimer’s workis remarkablyclear and consistent and provides compelling answers to why, tragically, aggressive state strategies are a rational answer to life in the international system. Furthermore, Mearsheimer makes important additions to structural alliance theory and offers new important insights into the role of power and geography in world politics. Journal of International Relations and Development (2005) 8, 381–408. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800065 Keywords: great power politics; international security; John J. Mearsheimer; offensive realism; realism; security studies Introduction Dangerous security competition will inevitably re-emerge in post-Cold War Europe and Asia.1 International institutions cannot produce peace.
    [Show full text]
  • The Franco-Prussian War: Its Impact on France and Germany, 1870-1914
    The Franco-Prussian War: Its Impact on France and Germany, 1870-1914 Emily Murray Professor Goldberg History Honors Thesis April 11, 2016 1 Historian Niall Ferguson introduced his seminal work on the twentieth century by posing the question “Megalomaniacs may order men to invade Russia, but why do the men obey?”1 He then sought to answer this question over the course of the text. Unfortunately, his analysis focused on too late a period. In reality, the cultural and political conditions that fostered unparalleled levels of bloodshed in the twentieth century began before 1900. The 1870 Franco- Prussian War and the years that surrounded it were the more pertinent catalyst. This event initiated the environment and experiences that catapulted Europe into the previously unimaginable events of the twentieth century. Individuals obey orders, despite the dictates of reason or personal well-being, because personal experiences unite them into a group of unconscious or emotionally motivated actors. The Franco-Prussian War is an example of how places, events, and sentiments can create a unique sense of collective identity that drives seemingly irrational behavior. It happened in both France and Germany. These identities would become the cultural and political foundations that changed the world in the tumultuous twentieth century. The political and cultural development of Europe is complex and highly interconnected, making helpful insights into specific events difficult. It is hard to distinguish where one era of history begins or ends. It is a challenge to separate the inherently complicated systems of national and ethnic identities defined by blood, borders, and collective experience.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethics of Cyberwarfare Randall R
    This article was downloaded by: [University of Pennsylvania] On: 28 February 2013, At: 08:22 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Military Ethics Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/smil20 The Ethics of Cyberwarfare Randall R. Dipert a a SUNY (State University of New York) at Buffalo, NY, USA Version of record first published: 16 Dec 2010. To cite this article: Randall R. Dipert (2010): The Ethics of Cyberwarfare, Journal of Military Ethics, 9:4, 384-410 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2010.536404 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Journal of Military Ethics, Vol. 9, No. 4, 384Á410, 2010 The Ethics of Cyberwarfare RANDALL R.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defense of Europe by Dr. A.C. Beyer It Is Very Important That The
    In Defense of Europe By Dr. A.C. Beyer It is very important that the European Union stays together. The history of Europe has illustrated that a united Europe, hence the EU, is the best safeguard against war in Europe that we have. If the EU would fall apart, then the peace in Europe would be in danger; maybe not today or tomorrow, but in the long term. The history of Europe is speckled with a lot of bloody and long wars. They were the result of the absence of a supranational authority in Europe. Thus, we need the EU, and we need all the member states together. An EU without Britain would be like a truck with one wheel missing. It would simply not be very safe, even if it worked for a while. What can be done? One argument is that given that we are in Europe, other Europeans, such as foreign Europeans living in the UK and in other foreign countries, British and non-British, should also get a say in the matter. This could open up the room for more referenda on a wider scale. EU citizens in Britain were not allowed to vote in the referendum, which in a European sense means a lack of participatory rights. That right, at least, should have been exercised. Similarly, maybe one should not allow a referendum so that it threatens the peace in Europe. Prevention of war, in my view, is a more important topic than democracy in form of referenda. If Mars attacked Earth, for example, would there be a referendum if to defend Earth? Did the US have a referendum if to respond to the 9/11 attacks or what to do? No! Would the US have a referendum if New Jersey, Florida or Texas wanted to leave the US if they wished to do so? No! The matter is simply too serious to leave it to a referendum, in particular one that could end in such a close result.
    [Show full text]
  • Balance of Power
    BALANCE OF POWER BALANCE OF POWER Theory and Practice in the 21st Century Edited by T. V. Paul, James J. Wirtz, and Michel Fortmann Stanford University Press, Stanford, California 2004 Stanford University Press Stanford, California © 2004 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system without the prior written permission of Stanford University Press. Printed in the United States of America on acid-free, archival-quality paper Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Balance of power : theory and practice in the 21st century / edited by T.V. Paul, James J. Wirtz, and Michel Fortmann. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8047-5016-5 (cloth : alk. paper)—ISBN 0-8047-5017-3 (pbk : alk. paper) 1. Balance of power. 2. International relations. I. Paul, T.V. II. Wirtz, James J., 1958– III. Fortmann, Michel. JZ1313.B35 2004 327.1'01—dc22 2004011433 Designed by Janet Wood Typeset by BookMatters in 11/14 Garamond Original Printing 2004 Last figure below indicates year of this printing: 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 Contents List of Tables vii Acknowledgments ix About the Editors and Contributors xi Introduction: The Enduring Axioms of Balance of Power Theory and Their Contemporary Relevance T. V. Paul 1 Part I: Theories of Balance of Power and Major Powers 1. What Do Great Powers Balance Against and When? 29 Jack S.
    [Show full text]
  • Scarce Differences: Toward a Material and Systemic Foundation for Offensive and Defensive Realism
    Security Studies, 22:436–465, 2013 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0963-6412 print / 1556-1852 online DOI: 10.1080/09636412.2013.816125 Scarce Differences: Toward a Material and Systemic Foundation for Offensive and Defensive Realism ERIC J. HAMILTON AND BRIAN C. RATHBUN A divide has opened up between offensive and defensive realism as to the relative scarcity of security in the international system, with powerful implications for the vision each approach offers about the nature of international politics. Yet we still do not understand why the two diverge given their common neorealist foundations. This article reviews implicit, explicit, and other potential explanations of that difference—the relationship between power and security, the offense-defense balance, the prevalence and efficiency of balancing vs. bandwagoning, and the role played by uncertainty in decision- making—and finds them lacking in their ability to provide an adequate account that is systemic and structural in nature, does not violate arguments the scholars have made in practice, and does not confuse cause with effect. Finding prior efforts lacking, this article proposes that the distinction could be logically rooted in material scarcity, a familiar theme in realism historically that has been ignored in more recent formulations. Drawing a distinction between a “dangerous world” in which uncertainty is the core problem and a “competitive world” in which scarcity bedevils state relations helps explain where offensive and defensive realism both diverge and converge. Eric J. Hamilton is a PhD candidate in the Politics and International Relations Program at the University of Southern California. Brian C. Rathbun is an associate professor at the University of Southern California.
    [Show full text]
  • Armenians and the Cleansing of Muslims 1878–1915: Influences from the Balkans
    Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs ISSN: 1360-2004 (Print) 1469-9591 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjmm20 Armenians and the Cleansing of Muslims 1878–1915: Influences from the Balkans Brad Dennis To cite this article: Brad Dennis (2019): Armenians and the Cleansing of Muslims 1878–1915: Influences from the Balkans, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, DOI: 10.1080/13602004.2019.1654186 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13602004.2019.1654186 Published online: 14 Aug 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 11 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjmm20 Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1080/13602004.2019.1654186 Armenians and the Cleansing of Muslims 1878–1915: Influences from the Balkans BRAD DENNIS Abstract Armenian liberationists and revolutionaries since the end of the Russo-Ottoman War of 1878 looked to the Balkan model of political autonomy and independence as inspiration for crafting a liberation strategy for the Armenians in Eastern Anato- lia. In spite of the fact that more pragmatic revolutionaries attempted to convince the Armenian community that the Balkan model would not work for the Armenians because of demographic and geopolitical differences, the Armenian struggle for inde- pendence from the Ottoman Empire was waged in a way that was similar to the Balkan model. There is strong reason to believe that if the Armenians had had stron- ger British and Russian backing and constituted a slightly higher percentage of the population in the region of Eastern Anatolia that an independent Armenia would have emerged in Eastern Anatolia and Cilicia much in the same manner that an independent Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro emerged in the Balkans.
    [Show full text]