The growing EU “soft balancing” against US preventive war doctrine?
Fellow foreign policy zealot Marian’s post about the addition of Turkey to the European Union overlapped with an article by Robert A. Pape in the Summer 2005 issue of International Security that I read this morning. Pape is a proponent of the “soft balancing” theory of international relations. In his words, “States balance when they take action intended to make it hard for strong states to use their military advantage against others. . . . Mechanisms of soft balancing include territorial denial, entangling diplomacy, economic strengthening, and signaling of resolve to participate in a balancing coalition.” (International Security 30:1, p. 36).
As an example of soft balancing against the US, Pape cites Turkey’s January 2003 refusal to allow the US to stage ground troops in Turkey in preparation for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Perhaps Turkey joining the EU would be a further example of soft balancing– Europe wants to insulate itself against future economic shocks that could occur as a result of, for example, the US invading Iran, or Syria, or whomever British intelligence next erroneously identifies as hiding WMD (Australia, anyone? Bunch of criminals! How about Canada? Alcan found to be manufacturing 7075 T6 aluminum tubes?)
I mostly agree with Pape’s theory, but I think he ascribes too much control to national governments. In January 2003, if I recall correctly, there were riots in Turkey over the possibility of American troops being stationed there. The Turkish government may not have been strategically balancing against the US so much as attempting to ensure political stability for the ruling party.
Other interesting information from Pape’s article:
- What Bush II calls a war in which the US would “act preemptively” in The National Security Strategy of the United States has traditionally been called in international relations “preventive war.” A “preemptive” attack typically refers to an attack which occurs in immediate response to observed battle preparations (troop deployments, for example).
- In a footnote, Pape says that “In the standard list of preventive wars over the past two centuries, all were started by authoritarian states: Napoleonic Wars (1793-1815), Austro-Prussian War (1866), Franco-Prussian War (1870), Russo-Japanese War (1904), World War I (1914), Germany-Soviet Union (1941), and Japan-United States (1941).” Pape cites as a source Randall L. Schweller, World Politics 44:2, pp. 235-269.
July 19th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Please blog more frequently.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Sir Pingswept, Perhaps you could write a blog post about some of the Bush administration’s foreign policy successes. Oh wait, I see that you already have. In fact, you have written infinitely many such posts. Each contains zero statements. Thank you.
August 11th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Brandon, have you heard about the new regulations on carrying liquids aboard airplanes? It seems that now even hair gels ‘er prohibited.
August 13th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Q: What does the Homeland Security officer do before he gets into the swimming pool?
A: He takes his Chertoff.
August 31st, 2006 at 6:32 am
Let me get this straight. A month ago everyone went nuts because some Englishmen were seconds away from blowing up every plane in the world, simultaneously killing millions. These imminent attacks would have been on an unprecended scale, and probably would have wiped out the entire human race, if not the whole universe. Bush and all those guys go on TV and talk about how we need to give up even more civil liberties in order to continue thwarting attacks like this. Chertoff installs a video camera in his bedroom and encourages all other Americans to do the same (or risk Guantanemization).
Then we find out that actually these terrorists had not yet succeeded in building any bombs, nor even purchased plane tickets. Some did not have visas with which to travel. Some did not even have MasterCard or Diner’s Club!!! All they had were leaky batteries and some sports drink bottles. Meanwhile, we are forced to watch Chertoff’s night terrors on national TV and give up most of our civil liberties in order to show our patriotism.
BUY CIALIS FROM MIKE GOELZER NOW: http://WWW.CIALIS-ONLINE.COM
August 31st, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Pingswept, do you or your readers from other countries have any civil liberties that you could lend to me to? I seem to have lost all of mine. Please send them to:
Terr O. Rist
Cell #995,322
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
Please conceal them inside of a box of baked goods or one of those books where in the inside has been hollowed out. Actually, baked goods would be preferable. Specifically, brownies or something chocolatey.
P.S. Could you also send hair gels? It is important to me to be well coiffured.
September 2nd, 2006 at 1:13 am
what difference it makes to simple people … we dont care turkey gets in or iran or even united states … ? to me all this thing is high profile politics about which every day man donot even care …
September 2nd, 2006 at 1:19 am
Brandon, enjoyed your insightful analysis, but felt that you overuse first person pronouns in your writing. May continue reading your blog if you stop that practice. Would love to know more about your views.
Douglas
September 2nd, 2006 at 9:15 am
To the Editors:
Sir, I am writing regarding many recent comments I have submitted that have been denied their rightful place on this weblog. I feel that the editorial standards are not sufficiently lenient as to permit persons of ordinary means and social standing to share our opinions. Within the past week alone, you have accepted submissions from high profile aristocrats such as “Douglas” and “Fred,” but you ignore the common man such as myself. Do our voices not deserve to be heard also? Do we not as well have a right to express our views? I hope you will reconsider your comment approval policy of denying almost all comments in favor of a policy that allows for a true meritocracy to flourish on these pages.
Sincerely,
Medications Fouringsworth Yue
December 11th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
Pape cites in his article “Soft Balancing against U.S” that if the U.S did not prevent the application of the 2002 U.S national security strategy, which is widely viewed an aggressive unilateral U.S policy, major power such as, China, Britain, Europe, Turkey, Brazil and other regional power could increase soft balancing against U.S.