Building upon weeks 1 and 2 discussions, we now arrive at power: namely, what is it in relation to economics and trade? Setting aside the canonical theories of power (e.g., realism), we will connect quotidian power to production (and ultimately to trade/production) via Brooks.Brooks contends that while the primary motivations of and behind sovereignty, however arrayed, have not changed since Thucydides (fear, interest, pride), the practical import of globalization had radically altered the means of power. As he puts it: the calculus of conflict has changed, profoundly. Accordingly, our Clausewitzian predicates of conflict have materially altered strategy.
To be fair and balanced, I am including a link to a rebuttal of Brooks. Kirshner actually supports the underlying premises of the argument. He believes, however, that the explanation has limited utility writ large. For example, Kirshner argues that: "For international relations the consequences of contemporary globalization are profound not so much because of the “decline of the state,” but because the benefits and challenges of globalization to “the state” varies dramatically from one country to another." And so on.
To minimize reading wear-and-tear, you can read the intro and conclusion for the gist.
Jonathan Kirshner, “The Changing Calculus of Conflict?” Security Studies, Oct-Dec 2007, Vol. 16 Issue 4, p583-597
see also, Jeffrey, W. Taliaferro, “State Building for Future Wars:Neoclassical Realism and the Resource-Extractive State,” Security Studies 15, no. 3 (July–September 2006), pp. 464–495
for the even more ambitious, please have a look at the Chairman's of Defense Science Board 2008 testimony to Congress re. defense production globalization and its perceived impact on national security: National Security Industrial Program: Implications of Globalization and Foreign Ownership and the Defense Industrial Base. And, yes, the sky is partially falling.
No comments:
Post a Comment