диссертация (1169608), страница 11

Просмтор этого файла доступен только зарегистрированным пользователям. Но у нас супер быстрая регистрация: достаточно только электронной почты!

Текст из файла (страница 11)

In thisinterpretation, we are primarily talking about military force137. But behind it lie theeconomic parameters - an effective military organism requires a developed economy.Based on this, A. Voskressenskiy believes that “different elements of theregional subsystem or different combinations of regional actors affect the global level indifferent ways: they can support and strengthen the global order, contribute to its radicaldemolition and subversive or evolutionary transformation into a new quality”138.This is an important thesis that cautions against the risks of multipolarity, whichin fact is demonstrated by the situation in the Middle East, where several local protohegemons compete for regional dominance, provoking instability of the entire system atthe regional level. In this case, the situation in the subsystem will be appropriate to beextrapolated to the global level.In the Russian political discourse, it is customary to perceive multipolarity as ablessing.

Indeed, such a system gives a greater diplomatic maneuver and is theoreticallymore democratic. The downside is the risk of aggravation of contradictions between thepoles and a more complex process of finding compromises. We emphasize that the137Шаклеина Т.А.

Феномен и параметры великодержавности в мировой политике ХХI века / Т.А.Шаклеина // Мегатренды. Основные траектории эволюции мирового порядка в ХХI веке / Э.Я. Баталов, А.А.Байков, Н.А. Симония и др.; под ред. Т.А. Шаклеиной и А.А. Байкова. - М.: Аспект Пресс, 2013. – С.178-195.138Воскресенский А.Д. Регионализация в современных международных отношениях. (Окончание) / А.Д.Воскресенский // Восток.

- 2012. - №6. - С. 5-12.43poles are determined precisely in terms of military power, as well as the technologicaland economic grounds that provide it.K. Waltz also addressed the concept of interdependence, which is relevant intoday's economically integrated world, as opposed to liberalism and Marxism, whichinterpret it more economically, albeit with different emphases (liberals - with anemphasis on the advantages of trade, Marxists - with an emphasis on the costs ofinequality) . K.

Waltz agrees that for interdependence the key problem is precisely theinequality. But it should be understood in political, and not in economic categories, thatis, in terms of power139.The states that are relatively equal to each other can be interdependent. If theyare not equal, then interdependence turns into a dependence of some on others. That iswhy interdependence within the framework of the theory of neo-realism decreases asthe number of powers in the system decreases - most of the states become dependent ona small number of centers of power.By way of summing up, one should reiterate that isolation of the regional levelof international relations (regionalization) “rehabilitates” the category of space ininternational political and economic analysis and favours development of new subdisciplinary approaches “at the crossroads” of international relations, world politics andcomparative political science140.A spatial dimension is beneficial because it allows for understandingglobalization and regionalization as not being juxtaposed, but being functionallyinterconnected.

This permits us to employ the category of space as a system-formingone (as opposed to “power” in the purely realist or even neoliberal worldview) and toidentify the regional level of international relations as a relatively independent object fortheoretical and practical analysis.139Waltz, Kenneth (1998). “Globalisation and Governance”, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 32, No. 4,pp. 693-700.140Barakat S., The case for a regional reconstruction strategy [Электронный ресурс]. // The BrookingsInstitution.

URL: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/03/04/the-case-for-a-regional-reconstruction-strategy-forthe-middle-east/442.2. Role and Place of Medium and Smaller Powers in the Processes of BuildingRegional Security SystemsAs we found out earlier, the military force and the threat of its use hascommonly been viewed by theorists as a key factor in the development of worldprocesses. In this context, major powers are positioned as the main actors in theseprocesses, since “the stability of the system was ensured by maintaining a balance ofpower between them.

Any redistribution of material opportunities, provoked by aviolation of this equilibrium, manifested itself in large-scale conflicts and redistributionof the world between great powers”141.In these conditions, smaller and medium-sized states, as a rule, received lessattention, despite their growing importance in an unstable multi-polar world. Forexample, H. Morgenthau believed that “small nations always owe their security to thebalance of power or to the protection by a Great Power, or unattractiveness from thepoint of view of the imperialist aspirations of others”142. However, over time, whatseemed to be so obvious in relations between bigger and smaller states ceased to betreated quite unequivocally in favor of the great powers.In the second half of the 20th century, the great powers began to gradually losetheir relative dominant influence in the world distribution of power.

This was facilitatedby the creation and spread of nuclear weapons, which made new global wars a senselessand even dangerous instrument for achieving foreign policy goals. At the same time, thegradual development of international law and the processes of decolonization increasedparticipation in international processes of smaller and medium-sized countries. Thus,the role of the states “having a strong and weak influence in their immediateenvironment, but at the same time sufficient funds for preserving their independenceand territorial integrity”, was revised143.One of the notable signs of this trend was the classic work of St. Walt in relationto the success of asymmetric strategies of smaller and medium-sized countries, which141R.

Owen, State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East, - London and New York:Routledge, 2000 – 300 р.142Morgenthau H. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. N.Y., Р. 1978 – 79-80143Kassimeris C. The foreign policy of small powers //International Politics.

– 2009. – Т. 46. – №. 1. – С. 84101.45allowed conceptualizing two ground models of the behavior of states - balancing andbandwagoning144.The first strategy presupposes opposition to the increasing power of theopponent and attempts to restrain his development, the second - rapprochement withhim (most often - forced). Accordingly, it was believed that balancing is peculiar first ofall to strong states - great powers, whereas bandwagoning to smaller and medium-sizedcountries who are unable to provide effective resistance to a rising hegemony.

In thefuture, combining these strategies, by analogy with the concept of “smart power” as acombination of “soft” and “hard”, was singled out as a separate behavioral category anddefined as “maneuvering”145.In the conditions of the polycentricism of the world system and the “diffusion offorce”, the maneuvering strategy acquired additional significance for smaller andmedium-sized powers. New independent countries needed diversification of sources offoreign aid, including through developing relations with non-traditional and extraregional centers of power.Historically, the policy of balancing was attributed to smaller and medium-sizedcountries because of their inability to formulate their foreign policies in accordance withtheir own national interests under conditions of external pressure from the great powers.However, at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, the course towards regionalintegration at the level of small and medium powers became one of the most visibleareas of their own version of the balancing policy.For example, the Final Communiqué of the first GCC summit noted:“Responsibility for the security and stability of the region is borne by its peoples andstates.

The Cooperation Council, as an expression of the will of these states and theirright to protect the security of the region and its independence, confirms theunacceptability of any foreign intervention, considering it inadmissible to turn theregion into a field of confrontation between world powers and, in particular, to144Keohane R.O. Lilliputians' Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics. International Organization. Vol.23, Issue 02. Spring 1969. 291-310 рр.145Browning C.

S. Small, smart and salient? Rethinking identity in the small states literature //CambridgeReview of International Affairs. – 2006. – Т. 19. – №. 4. – С. 669-684.46accommodate foreign military fleets and bases”146. The basis of its “joint activities” ofthe GCC was proclaimed “principles of non-alignment”147.According to political scientist E. Lust, “the emphasis on “self-reliance” andemphasis on the military-political aspect of security was natural for the Arab states ofthe Arabian Gulf, since the states that created the union were interested in ensuring thesecurity of the Arabian Gulf zone, not only because of changes in regional politics, butalso in light of the threat of filling the political vacuum created by the departure ofBritain, from the powerful external actors of the bipolar era - the USSR and the UnitedStates of America”148.Despite the existence of such a mechanism for ensuring the national security ofsmall and medium powers, for a long time the Middle East was not a self-sufficientregion from the point of view of ensuring its own security.

Security - as, indeed, most ofthe threats - were the subject of regional imports and provided by external forces149.The end of the Cold War era and the disintegration of the bipolar system madesignificant adjustments to this situation. In particular, smaller and medium-sizedcountries have gained new opportunities to balance external threats to their ownsovereignty through tactics of bandwagoning. Using the example of the GCC, theaggression on the part of Saddam Hussein, the growing power of Iran and the problemsof terrorism broadened the block's view of approaches to solving security problems.Speaking on July 11, 2012 at the Cambridge Gulf Research Center, the SecretaryGeneral of the GCC, Dr Abdulratif AL-Zayani stressed: “The instability of the regionalsituation and the threat of terrorism require the strengthening of relations in the sphereof military cooperation and the fight against terrorist movements not only between thecountries of the Cooperation Council, but also between them and friendly states.

Характеристики

Список файлов диссертации