| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
148151
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Grand strategy change analyses exhibit problems in balancing the interaction among ideas, external structures and developments, and domestic politics. An alternative theory is constructed that combines the correspondence between external problems and capability, shocks, political entrepreneurship, domestic politics, and reinforcement. The essence of the theory is that strategic shifts are more probable and likely to persist to the extent that more of these components involve significant changes. The 1920–1945 system leader puzzle – why the United States abstained from ascending to the system leader position in 1920 but not in 1945 – is used as an illustration of the theory's explanatory utility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
143906
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Australia seems to have condemned itself to a template of its relations with the USA and China where security assurances reside with the former and economic with the latter. But this veneer of stability is misleading. Over the last decade, successive Australian prime ministers have ranged from describing China as a ‘true friend’ (Rudd in 2008) to one towards whom it feels ‘fear and greed’ (Abbott in 2014). This range betrays a policy void where the dominant Australian psyche is plagued by a perceived lack of power and fatalism. Policy towards China has become the victim of shifting ephemeral political trends driven by volatile emotions rather than a stronger, more level-headed long-term strategic vision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
188880
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article brings leftist-oriented foreign policy ideas into dialogue with mainstream grand strategy literature. It argues that American progressives seek a durable security comprised of peace, democracy, and equality, meaning the grand strategies discoverable within progressive thinking are ultimately projects of worldmaking. Since leftist thought is eclectic, it gives rise to not one but three ideal-type progressive grand strategies. Progressive pragmatism treats oligarchy and kleptocracy as threats, sustains military commitments to democratic allies only, and prioritizes equality at the level of the global political economy. Antihegemonism is a project of robust restraint, positing that US power per se makes the United States and others less secure. Peacemaking aims to change the valence of world politics. It combines a cooperative security regime and gradual disarmament with nonviolent peacebuilding and support for democracy movements. These modes of progressive reasoning entail their own assumptions, wagers, and risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|