диссертация (1169605), страница 6
Текст из файла (страница 6)
The most radicalmanifestation of this school of international relations comes from those whoascribe to the Hegemonic Stability Theory, which states that unipolarity – theinternational condition in which a single hegemon exerts predominant power allacross the world – is the most stable and preferable type of ordering system forpreserving peace in an anarchic system. The neoconservative faction of theAmerican elite, a mainstay of the US’ permanent military, intelligence, anddiplomatic bureaucracies who gained widespread prominence during the Bushadministration, pertinently adhere to this dogma.
David Skidmore cites theHegemonic Stability Theory in his 2010 book declaring that it “suggests that thehegemon should embrace multilateralism during its period of ascendance but shifttoward unilateralism as relative decline sets in” 30. This is an accurate depiction ofthe US’ 1990s unipolar moment during which it sought to multilaterally engage asmany partners as possible in pursuit of its ends, and it also describes the post-9/11unilateralism of the Bush administration very well too.29Mearsheimer J. Structural Realism.
In: Dunne T., Kurki M., Smith S., eds. International Relations Theories:Discipline and Diversity, 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 77-93.30Skidmore D. The Unilateralist Temptation in American Foreign Policy. Routledge, 2010, p. 8.23The issues of world order polarity/centricity and role of states are beingactively discussed until present time. Russian and American scholars who write onthese very important and challenging issues suggest various explanations andvisions of the evolution of structural trend in world politics: distribution of powerand influence between modern great powers, formation of partners and alliesaround them (bandwagoning)31. Ongoing structural transformation is very wellreflected in the situation in Syria where interests of several great powers collide(the United States and NATO countries, Russia, Turkey, Iran).
The formation ofthe American strategic documents has been also influenced by the intention to keepUS decisive influence in the region and in the settlement of the Syrian situation.Critics like J. Mearsheimer are overplayed by neoliberal and neorealist expertswho do not support “retrenchment in American policy and encourage actionsagainst Russia in Syria (and in general) 32. So, debate between representatives ofboth schools of thought continue, and as a result, American global strategy is acombination of neorealist and neoliberal ideas, though the National SecurityStrategy of the Trump administration is defined as realist 33.The rival school of neorealist interpretation is neoliberalism, the origins ofwhich are also nearly four decades old.
Robert Keohane is credited withintroducing this theory to the world in his 1984 book “After Hegemony”, whichhas gone on to be cited as the main neoliberal text 34. Just like K.Waltz and theneorealists, Keohane recognizes that anarchy is pervasive in the internationalsystem, but his divergence with their ideas begins when he proposes that it ispossible to maintain a sort of order amidst this chaos if states join the sameSee, for instance: Мегатренды. Основные траектории эволюции мирового порядка XXI века. M.: АспектПресс, 2014. С.
19-53; 69-84, 283-298; Шаклеина Т.А. Россия и США в мировой политике. M.: Аспект Пресс,2018. С. 20-65; Brooks S. G., Wohlforth W. C. America Abroad. The United States’ Global Role in the 21 stCentury. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 48-72; 73-87.32Mearsheimer J., Walt S. The Case of Offshore Balancing. A superior U.S. Strategy // Foreign Affairs. - Vol. 95. No. 4.
P. 70-84; Hendrickson D. Republic in Peril. American Empire and the Liberal Tradition. N.Y.: OxfordUniversity Press, 2018. 304 p.; Lieber J.R. Retreat and Its Consequences. American Foreign Policy and the Problemof World Order. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2016. 152 p.Зобнин А. К определению принципа баланса сил. Опыт неоинституционального подхода к международнойсреде. // Международные процессы. - T. 12. - № 3 (38).
С. 55-69.33National Security Strategy of the United States of America. December 2017 / https://www.whitehouse.gov/34Keohane R. O. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, 1984, pp.49-110.3124international regimes. Institutions, R.Keohane writes, are the key to preservingpeace in the anarchic world, arguing that the shared self-interests that unite each ofthe members reinforce their desire to cooperate with one another.
Institutions areso important because they have clearly established rules, commitments, and stakesthat each party must abide by in order to collectively attain their self-interests.Modern-day theorists have expanded on this point to posit that democracy couldserve as an ends in and of itself by being its own institutional form dedicated topeace. Proponents of this ideology advocate the spreading of democracy all acrossthe world out of the belief that democratic states don’t go to war against oneanother, which is central tenet of the Democratic Peace Theory.The neoliberals emphasize the role that national policies, concessions, anddeal-making play in moderating anarchy, but they seem to neglect the importanceof power and national interests when analyzing international relations.
Thisshortcoming is a common criticism of neoliberals, who are sometimes accused ofbeing too utopian in their viewpoints. On the other hand, their system of analysis isuseful in filling in the blind spots that neorealism fails to address, which is whyWaltz’s work came first and was followed by Keohane’s, and not vice-versa.Looking at the applicability of neoliberalism to the formation of the US’ foreignpolicy towards the Mideast, it’s clear to see how influential this strain of thoughtwas in shaping strategists’ thinking.
After all, one can convincingly argue that theoriginsof“democracypromotion”restwithKeohane,andthattheneoconservatives adopted some of these ideas into their worldview. Taking thiseven further, it almost looks like the neoconservatives believe that the HegemonicStability Theory could best be served by promoting the Democratic Peace Theory,or in other words, that they believe that unipolarity could be upheld by acombination of neorealism and neoliberalism.
This conclusive point will beelaborated on in the final section of this chapter, but it’s being introduced at thismoment in order for the reader to keep it in mind when reviewing the rest of theneoliberal theory.25More insight needs to be given about the specifics of the Democratic PeaceTheory and the influence that it’s had on neoliberal thought, so it’s appropriate tocite 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant’s 1795 “Perpetual Peace: APhilosophical Sketch” in tracing the roots of this idea 35.
E.Kant is regarded as thegodfather of liberalism and he advocated a community of democratic nations as themost surefire guarantee of global peace, which obviously is the Democratic PeaceTheory in everything but name. Paul K. Huth and Todd L. Allee attempted toprove the validity of this theory by analyzing the entire 20 th century in their book“The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century”36. Thislengthy work references numerous data points and a plethora of case studies instriving to prove that the theory is reputable and does in fact account for prolongedperiods of peace between democracies.The Democratic Peace Theory isn’t infallible though, and it obviouslyremains a theory and not a political law because it can’t be conclusively proven asa determinant of system behavior. Toni Ann Pazienza worked hard to expose thelimits of this idea in his work “Challenging the Democratic Peace Theory - TheRole of US-China Relationship” 37.
The researcher writes that there are seriousquestions about the frame of reference that constitutes a “democracy”, as well aswhat is meant by “war” or “conflict”, pointing out that “democracies” mightactually be more violent than non-democracies in that they often go to war againstthe latter. Moreover, the Democratic Peace Theory doesn’t provide for modern-dayforms of non-traditional aggressions such as information and economic wars, andthis, the realistic critics claim, proves that it’s impossible to indefinitely sustain alasting peace between any two states.The most radical expression of neoliberal theory is probably the modern-dayideologues who obsess over the idea of militant “democracy promotion”,35Kant I.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
