INTR2010 Study Guide - Final Guide: Graham T. Allison, Security Dilemma, Power Transition Theory
18 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
(WK 10)
RIVALRY IN ASIA: ANARCHY, INSECURITY, AND POWER
RIVALRY IN ASIA – ANARCHY, INSECURITY, AND POWER
Key Security concepts in IR
Anarchy and uncertainty
Power and threats in IR threat perceptions
The security dilemma interpretation and response dilemma and the security
paradox
State behaviour power seeking, defensive or community building
Neo-realists believe: (1) that the structure of an international system (i.e., the
distribution of power among states) will determine its destiny, and (2) that multipolar
systems are more prone to instability than those that are bipolar
Neo-liberals by contrast maintain: that the structure of a system may be less
important in determining its functioning than a range of other factors, including the
domestic regimes of the nations of which it is composed and the level and character
of their economic and institutional interconnections
Defining “rivalry”
Key characteristics:
-Bilateral
-Competitive dynamic (zero sum)
-Mutual threat perceptions
-Tendency to conflict
Positional rivalries influence and order
Territorial rivalries specific sovereignty claims, perhaps in positional rivalries
Enduring rivalries
Dynamic relationships rivalries can rise and fall
Enduring ones involve strategic competition over…
-Extended time periods, with recurrent confrontations and high escalation risk
Why important? Power shifts and polarization
Symmetrical or asymmetrical?
Balanced vs. imbalanced most rivalries are asymmetrical: between large and
small powers
Positional rivalries about shifting symmetry
Territorial rivalries:
-Often symmetrical
-Territorial but leads to positional entrapment
Sources of rivalry
Immediate sources:
-Geographical proximity
-Arms races and threat perceptions
-History of rivalry or conflict
-Nationalism and ethnicity
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Deeper sources:
-Anarchy and paranoia
-Shifting balance of power uni-, bi-, or multi-polarity
In strategic terms, bipolarity is giving way, not to unipolarity nor yet to
simple multipolarity (with a group of roughly equal, globally engaged
“great powers”), but to a set of regional subsystems in which clusters of
contagious states interact mainly with one another
Neo-realists believe that multipolar systems are intrinsically unstable
Dynamics of Multipolarity
oNeo-realist pessimism about the prospects for a multipolar peace
rests largely on the assertion that, “for the sake of stability”,
“smaller is better…[and] to
The Thucydides trap
Thucydides trap: refers to what Graham Allison has popularised the notion of the
dangers of power transition beyond the academy
When Chinese and US officials meet, they often refer explicitly to the
academically rooted idea of the ‘Thucydides trap’ – e.g. Foreign Minister Wang
Yi in 2014 referred explicitly to the need to free the China-US relationship ‘from the
so-called Thucydides trap’, with war not seen in zero-sum terms, but as a ‘lose-lose’
outcome for two countries that are so closely integrated, as he put it
This is an example of an analyses focusing on changes in the distribution of power
between China and US
The argument made by Athenian historian Thucydides, that the cause of the
Peloponnesian War in the 5th century BC was the rise of Athens and the fear that it
inspired Sparta.
Rising Athens, fear in Sparta and the inevitability of war
Structural stress caused by rapid shift in power balance
-Growing demands of rising power vs. increasing insecurity of established power
British-German rivalry and WWI still debated today - Allison, among others
argue that that particular conflagration was sparked by a dissatisfied Germany whose
leaders chose to challenge a declining hegemon, Britain.
Rivalry in the Asia-Pacific
What is unfolding in Asia is a race between accelerating dynamics of
multipolarity, which could increase the chances of conflict, and the growth of
mitigating factors that should tend to dampen them and to improve the
prospects for a continuing peace
The security dilemma is in essence: an amplifier of anxieties, in which the
defensive exertions of the participants stimulate each other and feed back upon
themselves. Once initiated, a multi-sided security scramble could accelerate
quickly to high levels of competitive military and diplomatic activity. Among its
other consequences, this turn of events would likely disrupt the further evolution
of whatever mitigating tendencies are presently developing in Asia
Mounting insecurity could intensify feelings of nationalism, slow the
construction of sturdy economic and institutional ties, and weaken or reverse
any trend toward increasing democratization.
Within the Asia Pacific there is a concern that China is in search of material power
and political domination rather than the wealth and well-being of its own citizens,
together with the well-being of the region’s peoples
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
If, as is alleged of Europe, the states of Asia are also converging toward a norm of
democracy, prosperity, socio-economic equity, and post-nationalist political culture,
that process is still in its very earliest stages.
While at best two of the 4 largest powers in Asia may be considered securely
democratic (Japan and India), China is not, and the fate of the other (Russia) hangs in
the balance
Among the region’s less powerful states there are a handful of stable European-style
liberal democracies (Australia and NZ), several totalitarian regimes (North Korea,
Vietnam), and a large number that display varying mixes of democracy and
authoritarianism (Thailand, Malaysia) as a consequence there will continue to be
interactions between democratic and non-democratic states within Asia
Nationalism is also a major cause of tension within the region – nationalism operates
strongly in a country like the Philippines as well as Vietnam – both countries that
have figured prominently in growing militarised spats with China over ownership of
islands in the South China Sea
Friedberg, Mearsheimer and White argue that the intensity of this rivalry is likely to
increase as China grows richer and stronger because, among other things, Beijing will
work harder to eject the US presence from a region where the US has long enjoyed
dominance
Friedberg: argues that China’s authoritarian system sharpens the effects and heightens
the stakes of the power transition
Mearsheimer (offensive realist view): de-emphasises political regime type – argues
that states seek power and ultimately regional hegemony, and that ‘if China continues
to grow economically, it will attempt to dominate Asia the way the US dominates the
Western Hemisphere’ – argues that domination is the “best way to survive under
international anarchy” and domination will put Beijing into a position to settle its
territorial disputes in its favour
White: pays more attention to the growing dependence of Asia-Pacific states on an
economic relationship with China, and the way that dependence will probably leave
them to gravitate towards, or bandwagon with, Beijing
Multiple rivalries
-Symmetrical and asymmetrical
-Geographical proximity
-Multiple sources
Territorial disputes are rampant in the region and involve big as well as
small powers
History is also a subject of disagreement in Asia and, as with territory,
controversies over it both reflect and reinforce feelings of national
identity and difference.
oFar from converging on a single interpretation of their recent
past, the Asian powers show signs of divergence, each
constructing history that services its own national purposes.
oSince 1980s, Japan has been in a number of disputes with China
and South Korea regarding the content of history textbooks used
by secondary schools
oChinese and Koreans accuse the Japanese of backing away from
their responsibility for WW1 and of minimizing the brutality of
their conduct during that conflict
“Ripe for rivalry” Multipolarity security dilemma threat perceptions
rivalry
Linkages
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Rivalry in asia: anarchy, insecurity, and power (wk 10) Rivalry in asia anarchy, insecurity, and power. Power and threats in ir threat perceptions. The security dilemma interpretation and response dilemma and the security paradox. State behaviour power seeking, defensive or community building. Neo-realists believe: (1) that the structure of an international system (i. e. , the distribution of power among states) will determine its destiny, and (2) that multipolar systems are more prone to instability than those that are bipolar. Territorial rivalries specific sovereignty claims, perhaps in positional rivalries. Dynamic relationships rivalries can rise and fall. Extended time periods, with recurrent confrontations and high escalation risk. Balanced vs. imbalanced most rivalries are asymmetrical: between large and small powers. Shifting balance of power uni-, bi-, or multi-polarity. In strategic terms, bipolarity is giving way, not to unipolarity nor yet to simple multipolarity (with a group of roughly equal, globally engaged.
