Zugl.: Bonn, Univ., Magisterarbeit, 2008/2009

Zugl.: Bonn, Universiẗat, Magisterarbeit, 2008/2009.

The great strategic distrust between the two world largest economic and military powers is one of the most debated topics in contemporary international relations. This thesis question if the current hegemon view its new competitor as an offensive or defensive realist state and which policies should consequently be taken. China’s policy of peaceful coexistence and the U.S attempt of global integration may not be fully compatible and the thesis illuminates the contradicting notions of China Confucius values and how they are visible in its foreign policy rhetoric. The thesis conclude by stating that the China’s ambitions in not seen as following the guidelines of a defensive realist state in the eye of the United States and that China’s so called unique characteristics and values are mere rhetoric that does not seem to shape its current foreign policy. The U.S response is so far a passive containment by increasing cooperation with other actors in the region as a balancing act while simultaneously cautiously engage and try to influence China to adopt policies fitting a global player and work for peaceful solutions to international problems. Thus China is not seen as either a friend or a foe but is currently viewed as being in a grey area of competitor and cooperator.

How can things so old be so new? The revival of debates on the fate of the liberal international order has reproduced discussions about what arguably are philosophical and theoretical tensions that have existed for a very long time. Taking a point of departure in Reinhart Koselleck’s Critique and Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society, this thesis aims to contribute with an understanding of how the contemporary crisis can be understood in the context of deep historical tensions, and the implications for the current debate. To fulfil this aim, I ask the question of how Koselleck’s analysis of the structures emerging from modernity can cast light on the tension between modernity and the current crisis of the liberal international order. These structures are used, with an emphasis on the need for historical context and a critical stance towards the attempt to establish universal truths, to analyse selected material from oft cited and prominent scholars of the debate. By analysing their ideas in the light of these structures, I have found that some suggested solutions to these tensions reinforce what creates the tension from the start. Another finding is that the debate, in some ways, is constrained by dichotomies and underlying universal metaphysical principles, which potentially can limit the possibility for potential change. My conclusion is that a continued renewed interest in these historical tensions hopefully can be a pathway to move beyond some of the constraints the current debate revolves around.

The Russian actions in Ukraine are often described and analyzed as a form of hybrid warfare, a new concept that needs to be understood and countered with new methods, such as hybrid deterrence. This understanding of the conflict might be problematic since it could lead to a wasting of resources on non-functional methods and policies and an overgeneralized understanding of Russian methods and aims. Therefore, this study aims to test an older theory of conventional deterrence, to examine if the theory can give an adequate understanding of the conflict. This study uses the Ukraine conflict of 2014 to test if John Mearsheimers theory of conventional deterrence offers a capable approach to understand and analyze the case. This study uses a qualitative text analysis to examine three different secondary sources explaining the case. The results show that the theory is well suited to analyze the case, since the majority of the indicators in the framework are fulfilled. However, it is possible that some important non-military factors are overlooked, since the theoretical framework only applies to the relation between military risks and costs and political goals. This study argues that older theories successfully can be used to understand the conflict and be used as a point of departure for future studies of both the specific case and similar cases.

I denne studien analyseres sikkerhetspolitiske utviklingstrekk i USA fra Bush til Obama. Fokuset rettes mot betydningsfulle kontinuiteter og endringer i overordnede syn på maktmidler, interesser og samarbeidstilnærminger. Empirisk materiale utgjøres hovedsakelig av ulike utgaver av amerikansk “National Security Strategy”. Slike strategier inneholder brede budskap, og som hjelp til å identifisere spesielt viktige momenter utarbeides først en teoretisk analyseramme basert på perspektiver til de samtidsaktuelle forskerne John J. Mearsheimer og Joseph S. Nye. Studiens resultater viser at militærmakten har en stabil posisjon som det høyest prioriterte maktmiddel i USA, men ny regjering satser mer på myke maktmidler og mindre på militærmakt ved fremming av egne verdier. Vedrørende interesser finner vi kontinuitet i at forsvar av nasjonen og håndtering av militære trusler er styrende for sikkerhetspolitikken, og USA har intensjoner om å opprettholde militær overlegenhet. Videre er også spredning av demokrati, respekt for menneskerettigheter og åpen markedsøkonomi konstante interesser, men en endring er at nasjonens økonomi er oppjustert på den sikkerhetspolitiske agenda. I et samarbeids-perspektiv synes unilateral militær agering mindre aktuelt for ny regjering, og internasjonale institusjoner er mer vektlagt. USA har imidlertid et videreført siktemål om å inneha en tydelig lederrolle og få stort gjennomslag for egeninteresser i internasjonalt samarbeid. Totalt sett indikerer de to regjeringenes sikkerhetsstrategier at styrende interesser er uendret, men den nye regjeringen har intensjoner om en mer balansert anvendelse av maktmidler og kommuniserer en mindre unilateral samarbeidsprofil. Forekomsten av vektige stabile trekk har imidlertid en dempende effekt på endringene, og bidrar til å gi inntrykk av at USA for tiden ikke staker ut en ny kurs, men justerer eksisterende kurs. / This study analyzes the development of the United States security policy from the administrations of Bush to Obama. Its focus is directed towards significant continuities and changes in the context of political means, interests and approaches to international cooperation. The empirical data mainly consists of U.S. National Security Strategies issued in 2002, 2006 and 2010. Such strategies contain broad messages and, therefore, to help identify issues of special significance, a theoretical framework based on the perspectives of the international relations scholars John J. Mearsheimer and Joseph S. Nye is first developed.  The findings of the study show that the position of military power as the most prioritized political instrument in the U.S. remains stable. However, in an effort to promote the nation’s values, the new administration intends to make more use of soft power and less use of military power. Regarding its interests, defending the nation and handling military threats are still top priorities, and an important aspect is that the U.S. intends to maintain its global military superiority. Spreading democracy, respect for human rights and free trade in an open international economic system are also constant interests, but one notable development is that the national economy figures more prominently on the security agenda. Looking at the approaches for cooperation, it seems that unilateral military action is an option which is less likely to be used by the new administration. Furthermore, this administration places greater emphasis on the value of international institutions than the previous administration. Still, an important continuity is the intention of maintaining a clear leadership role and strongly advancing U.S. interests when cooperating internationally. To summarize, the two administrations security strategies indicate that governing interests are unchanged, but the new administration is aiming for a better balance of the tools of American power, and is communicating a less unilateral profile. Still, the presence of significant stable aspects reduces the level of change, and contributes to the impression that the U.S. is not developing a new course, but rather adjusting the current one.

History of international relations suggests that rising power brings challenges and creates unstable environment in the international system. This thesis deals with the rise of China and its implications to the East Asia region. China has experienced massive economic growth over the last few decades which is likely to influence the dynamics not only of the region, but also of the international system as a whole. There is an ongoing discussion in the academic literature regarding the rise of China. In this thesis, the offensive neorealism theory of John J, Mearsheimer is employed. This paper focuses on the region of East Asia, namely to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Since the region is heavily penetrated by the US power, its position is also discussed. The question is how China will behave when it gets more powerful and what strategies the neighbouring countries choose in order to deal with China's rising power. The theory assumes that rising great power strive to dominate its region in order to establish regional hegemony. The main aim of this thesis is to examine whether or not the aforementioned states act according to the prism of offensive neorealism.

This essay aims to find a link between NATO policy in Europe from 2014-2022 to Russia’sdecision to invade Ukraine in February 2022. A process tracing methodology is used in conjunction with an offensive realist framework to demonstrate NATO’s role in influencing Russian defense policy. The investigation finds US global hegemony dictates NATOambitions, leading the Alliance to adopt aggressive policy in Eastern Europe. In turn, Russia identifies NATO as a threat in its military doctrine and proceeds to strengthen its defensive capabilities. Putin outlines Russia’s need for a buffer zone between it and NATO, a prime target for such a place being Ukraine. A failure by both parties to accommodate each others interests leaves Russia with a convincing rationale to seek military force in securing a more favorable defensive position.

A política, no sistema internacional do século XXI, será impactada pelas mudanças na base demográfica dos países. Ao mesmo tempo, aumenta a necessidade de Estados com acesso a tecnologias de ponta, ou seja, de grande polaridade, de utilizarem os recursos humanos de países em crescimento para a maximização de poder. O processo impacta a polarização com novas alianças de países. O uso da força necessita de pessoas para a defesa e a garantia da sobrevivência do Estado na Anarquia. Principalmente, em um cenário de guerra sistêmica com a utilização de armas nucleares que constituem as fiadoras das operações convencionais. Concomitantemente, a quantidade de pessoas na força de trabalho é a base das políticas de dissuasão nuclear dos Estados devido a capacidade de sobrevivência a um segundo ataque. / The policy in the twenty-first century international system, will be impacted by changes in the demographic base of countries. At the same time, increases the need for States with access to advanced technologies, ie, high polarity, use of human resources for countries to maximize growth of power. The polarization process impacts of new alliances with countries. The use of force requires people to defend and guarantee the survival of the state in Anarchy. Especially in a war scenario with the systemic use of nuclear weapons which are the guarantors of conventional operations. Concomitantly, the number of people in the workforce is the cornerstone of nuclear deterrence policies of the states over the survivability of a second attack.

A política, no sistema internacional do século XXI, será impactada pelas mudanças na base demográfica dos países. Ao mesmo tempo, aumenta a necessidade de Estados com acesso a tecnologias de ponta, ou seja, de grande polaridade, de utilizarem os recursos humanos de países em crescimento para a maximização de poder. O processo impacta a polarização com novas alianças de países. O uso da força necessita de pessoas para a defesa e a garantia da sobrevivência do Estado na Anarquia. Principalmente, em um cenário de guerra sistêmica com a utilização de armas nucleares que constituem as fiadoras das operações convencionais. Concomitantemente, a quantidade de pessoas na força de trabalho é a base das políticas de dissuasão nuclear dos Estados devido a capacidade de sobrevivência a um segundo ataque. / The policy in the twenty-first century international system, will be impacted by changes in the demographic base of countries. At the same time, increases the need for States with access to advanced technologies, ie, high polarity, use of human resources for countries to maximize growth of power. The polarization process impacts of new alliances with countries. The use of force requires people to defend and guarantee the survival of the state in Anarchy. Especially in a war scenario with the systemic use of nuclear weapons which are the guarantors of conventional operations. Concomitantly, the number of people in the workforce is the cornerstone of nuclear deterrence policies of the states over the survivability of a second attack.