Chapter 4: Grand Strategy II: Selective Engagement and Liberal Institutionalism
4.1: What is Selective Engagement
- Shares some aspects of Isolationism, it is mindful of the limits of American Power so it tries to avoid distant political and military interventions as it sees these actions to be unsuccessful
- It might instead limit or undermine US power by stretching its resources too thinly around the world
- Selective Engagement Posses at least 3 important differences from Isolationism
- Advocates of Selective Engagement acknowledge and even embrace American's global position as a super power, with limitations much more than what isolationists think
- Advocates of Selective Engagement are more comfortable with diplomacy which is the give and take of the balance of power politics, and need for credible commitments between countries with common enemies
- Examples: NATO or Japan
- The overriding Interests of Selective Engagement is focused on the prevention of great power war, these large wars impinge US interests, and often require significant domestic changes as a result
- Focus of Great Power Relations, stable balance of power between Great Powers
- Past 70 years done by not allowing any great power dominate the European Continent
- Focus of Great Power Relations, stable balance of power between Great Powers
4.2: Historical Example of Selective Engagement
- Example #1: Eisenhower's Administration
- Sought to alter the nature of the American Military Commitment to Europe in the 1950s
- Push more responsibility for defense to Europe
- Pull back troops, rely more on allies
- Increase reliance on nuclear weapons as a deterrent
- Worried about isolationists at home, thought it could increase chance of war with Soviets
- He believed that increased economic cost of Cold War could activate staunch domestic resistance
- But also simply following isolationism and withdrawing would cause a shift in the balance of power
- Sought to Preserve peace with the Soviet Union
- Selective Engagement in this case altered the nature of relation with Europe to sustain containment of the Soviets
- Sought to alter the nature of the American Military Commitment to Europe in the 1950s
- Example #2: George Bush Administration
- Was cautious of the collapse of the Soviet Union
- Resisted calls to descend on Gorbachev's weakness
- Gorbachev had weakened domestic policy, and Bush actually tried to support Gorbachev with the Soviet Union
- Germany becomes unified through UN, this displeases Gorbachev since Soviet Union launched the Cold War to keep Germany divided
- Bush worked to stabilize Great Power Relations and preserve peace
4.3: Discussion of the Mearsheimer and Walt Reading
- Argued that the US should pursue a Grand Strategy of Offshore Balancing, in opposition to Liberal Hegemony (fusion of Liberal Isolationism and Primacy).
- There are similarities in critiques of liberal hegemony (Both them and Posen argue it expends too many economic resources and traps US in a nationalist/sectarian conflicts that could easily increase the risk of terrorist attacks)
- Central Components of Offshore Balancing
- Seek to Maintain American Hegemony
- Not this regional dominance contrasts with primacy's political, military, and economic dominance on a global scale
- Defense
- US should not act to prevent the regional dominance or hegemony in 3 areas that are both structurally and economically important:
- {Europe, North East Asia, and The Persian Gulf}
- US should not act to prevent the regional dominance or hegemony in 3 areas that are both structurally and economically important:
- Seek to Maintain American Hegemony
- US needs to be much less concerned with fostering peace around the world, refrain from active interventions, cut back on economic and military resources deployed to achieve the objectives, and principals of conservatism
- US needs to pressure Europe to assume more responsibility in countering any emergent threats in their own neighborhoods
- Offshore Balancing
- Designed to maximize America's flexibility and leverage by delaying American Military Engagement until absolutely necessary
- Oppose large, nearly-permanent deployment of troops overseas, thus US should remain offshore, or un-involved in an escalated regional rivalry until one side posses interests that oppose the US in positions to win or breakout in confrontation
- Designed to maximize America's flexibility and leverage by delaying American Military Engagement until absolutely necessary
- Nested in the theories of International Relations associated with Realism
- Realism holds that the distribution of power plays a central role in shaping international political outcomes
- Mearsheimer and Walt were critical of the Bush Administration's decision to go to war with Iraq, they saw it as unnecessary, and provoked military opposition to the US
- US needed to pull back military commitments it made after the Cold War
- Relationship between Offshore Balancing & Selective Engagement
- Both rely on Realism & Balance of Power Theory
- Both focus on Great Power Politics
- Selective Engagement focuses on preventing a Great Power War
- Offshore Balancing seeks to prevent rise of a great power that is regionally dominant
- Both believe US has similar interests and both are more willing to deploy American troops abroad then in isolationism
- Both reject the need to promote goal democracy, and free trade associated with liberal internationalism
- Conflict with Realism
4.4: What is Liberal Internationalism?
- Embraces Multilateral Cooperation with other states to build a liberal institutional order to enhance the security and interests of the United States
- Liberal In this connotation means embracing free and fair elections, individual rights and freedoms like freedom of speech, religion, assembly, pros, free trade economy that rests on the private ownership of property
- Sees American National Interests and major security threats as global and expansive
- Two differentiating features from other Grand Strategies & That are orientated towards this global engagement:
- Liberalism Internationalism sees security as collective in nature, rather than achieved by the efforts of individual states
- Emphasis on Multilatereralism over Unilaterialism
- See Great values in United Organizations
- Emphasis on Multilatereralism over Unilaterialism
- Liberalism Internationalism sees security as collective in nature, rather than achieved by the efforts of individual states
- Two differentiating features from other Grand Strategies & That are orientated towards this global engagement:
- Obama's West Point Speech makes this point
- There shouldn't be a choice between values and security, they should reinforce each other
- Critique: Vein of Idealism, is too expensive and perceived as imperialism (Posen mentions this)
- Often calls for extensive American Military and Economic Interaction
- Woodrow Wilson used Liberal Internationalism
- Collective Security system through the League of Nations
- National Self-Determination (anti-imperialism)
- Democracy
- Free Trade
- Problem's with Woodrow Willson's System?
- How to enforce system? (League of Nations)
- Couldn't secure domestic support through Congress
4.5 Primacy & George W Bush Administration
- Goal is to use unilateral means to establish American Hegemony over rivals
- American Interests abroad are Global
- Security is achieved unilaterally through prepundent American Power
- Reliance on Military Power
- Critique: Primacy can lead to Overreach & Isolationism
4.8: Schweller Reading
- Challenging the Liberal International Order
- Key Principals
- Nationalists (or mercantilism) economy policy: use actions and tariffs to reduce trade deficit and open foreign markets
- No more multilateralism
- No more free riding
- Why the change? Responding to shift in structure of international politics
- Trump Policies are constraining US action and forcing the US to pull back, and pressuring allies to take more responsibilities