SECTION 4

NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY

Assignment One: Realism and Sino-American Security Political Science 327: Politics of National Security due Monday 24 September 2012

instructor: Aaron Karp p: 683 5700, f: 683 5701 e-mail: akarp@odu.edu

Is realism the best approach to understanding problems of national security, is it merely the easiest to apply, or is it fundamentally misleading? This assignment is your opportunity to describe and evaluate different versions of realism and their utility. Write an essay explaining the basic premises of two realist approaches to national security and apply them to Sino-American relations, contrasting similarities and differences. Specifically, your essay should:

!!

Explain the basic problem of national security that realism aims to solve.

!! Explain a major realist approach to national security (classical, defensive, offensive realism, etc), its major premises and expectations. For example, which actors and problems does it stress and why? The most important features it stresses in international security? How does it manage conflict?

!! Apply these premises and expectations to explain the outlook for Sino-American security relations. What does it lead you to believe is the best way to manage relations? Which tools will work best? Which will be least relevant?

!!

Pick another realist approach and repeat the process outlined above.

!! Conclude by contrasting the two approaches, emphasizing their similarities and differences. Which, if either, is a better guide to national security policy-making and why?

Respond to all parts of the assignment. Papers should be at least three single-spaced typed pages. There is no maximum length. A formal introduction and subheadings are highly desirable. Properly cite all sources you use with citations in either Chicago style footnotes or MLA text citations. Use of brief quotations from class readingswith proper citationsis strongly encouraged. Additional research on the bi-lateral relationship is not required, but it is welcome. Papers received before Sunday 23 September will be returned with recommendations for development.

If you have questions about the assignment, feel welcome to stop by BAL 7006 during office hours, call or e-mail. Unless specific arrangements are made in advanced, late papers will be penalized by one letter grade per day late. The paper is due 10:00 am Monday 24 September 2012. Essays should be e-mailed to akarp@odu.edu , left in my pigeon-hole in BAL 7029, or faxed to 683 5701.

33

T h e
A

C u r r e n t S i n o - A m e r i c a n S e c u r i t y D i l e m m a
C A S E S T U D Y
D o m i n i o n 3 2 7 : D r .

o f

R E A L I S M

C . M . A c u a
O l d P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e U n i v e r s i t y o f N a t i o n a l S e c u r i t y P o l i t i c s J o s h u a

K a r p 2 0 1 2

S e p t e m b e r

2 4 ,

34

A b s t r a c t Realism as a conceptual framework often utilized to evaluate issues of international relations through the heuristics of power and security. As such, it serves to reconcile a nation-states precarious balance between the pursuit of power and the mitigation of vulnerabilities. At its nucleus, realism utilizes several theoretical variants to pragmatically evaluate both the causality and viability of armed conflict among sovereign, nation-states. According to Morgenthau, realism draws from objectivity and combines this with a positivist methodology to establish schemas, evaluate probabilities, and determine the potentiation and utility of armed conflicts. Proponents of realism employ multifaceted theories to weigh variables, among these, human nature in order to determine the impact of fear politics on national security policy. It is imperative to understand that realism provides a framework with which to interpret the actions and reactions of actors as either consequential or inconsequential in order to determine the most beneficial response. This paper will survey characteristics of the current Sino-American security dilemma through the lenses of Offensive Structural Realism and Defensive Structural Realism.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

On Realism .................................................................................................................................2 Offensive Structural Realism ......................................................................................................3 A discussion on Defensive Structural Realism as it pertains to the current Sino-American security debate. On Moving Forward. ..................................................................................................................5 4

35

36

ON REALISM
F o r M o r g e n t h a u , c l a s s i c a l p o l i t i c a l r e a l i s m i s m e t a - t h e o r e t i c a l a n d a d v a n c e s s i x b a s i c t e n a n t s . F i r s t , O b j e c t i v i t y a n d h u m a n n a t u r e a r e f o u n d a t i o n a l w h e n e v a l u a t i n g t h e c u r r e n t p o l i t i c a l c l i m a t e . S e c o n d , t h e t e r m n a t i o n a l - i n t e r e s t i m p l i e s b o t h t h e m o t i v a t i o n s a n d m e c h a n i s m s o f e a c h a c t o r i n t h e i r p u r s u i t o f p o w e r m a x i m i z a t i o n . T h i r d , t h e m o t i v e s , o b j e c t i v e s , a n d m e a n s o f p o w e r c a n n o t b e d e f i n e d u n i v e r s a l l y ; t h e r e f o r e e a c h p a r t y ( g r e a t p o w e r ) d e f i n e s i t s a g e n d a . F o u r t h , m o r a l i t y a n d e t h i c s a r e v a l u a b l e a s s e t s w i t h i n t h e p o l i t i c a l a r e n a ; h o w e v e r, t h e l e n s o f r e a l i s m a c k n o w l e d g e s t h e s e a s s e c o n d a r y t o t h e p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e s a n d n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s . F i f t h , t h e v a l u e o f t r u t h i s n o t d e r i v e d f r o m a m e t a p h y s i c a l u n i v e r s a l m o r a l l a w ; h o w e v e r, t r u t h i s d e f i n e d a s t h a t w h i c h i s f a c t u a l , o b s e r v a b l e , a n d t a n g i b l e . S i x t h , p o l i t i c a l r e a l i s m d i v o r c e s i t s e l f f r o m p l u r a l i s t i c i d e a l s t h a t d o n o t a d v a n c e t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l n a t i o n - s t a t e , m o r a l o b l i g a t i o n s , a n d u t o p i a n a s p i r a t i o n s . I n s u m , p o l i t i c a l r e a l i s m d o e s n o t b u s y i t s e l f w i t h i m a g i n a t i o n , c r e a t i v i t y , a n d m o r a l i s t i c i d e a l s . H o w e v e r, i t f o c u s e s o n c u r r e n t p o w e r s a s t h e y a r e a n d n o t a s t h e y o u g h t t o b e ( M e a r s h e i m e r ; G l a s s e r ; S t u a r t ) . D u e t o i t s p r a g m a t i c a p p r o a c h , p o l i t i c a l r e a l i s m b e c a m e p o p u l a r i n t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y A m e r i c a n I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s a n d c o n t i n u e s t o i n f o r m p o l i c y m a k e r s t o d a y .

OFFENSIVE STRUCTURAL REALISM

Morgenthaus framework provides various tools to interpret the United States current political relationship with China. However, it is also very limited and does not fully address the nuances of current power politics. In this respect and with some reservation, Mearsheimer expands on Morgenthaus theory by addressing the systemic deficiencies and anarchical dynamic among nations which give rise to contentions and fears. As denoted by Mearsheimer, states attain security through their outward projections of power and by perception of capacity through systemic dominance (Mearsheimer). In such a paradigm, a nation establishes dominance by obtaining the most power in relation to that of other nations and defining itself as the status quo of power. Expansion is defined as the accumulation of national material assets (wealth) and military capacity (technology) or the realization powerful alliances to enable sustained self-security. Essentially, OSR seeks to exploit the vulnerabilities and hesitation of weaker nations and shrewdly evaluates national vulnerabilities and capacities as these stand in relation to that of other nation-states (Adams; Williams). In order to further expand its own capacities, and when it proves lucrative nations will engage in force to obtain the necessary resources to maintain power and suppress advancing threats. According to Mersheimer, a multipolar system of great powers is most likely to give rise to conflicts. Subsequently, other nations must confront the choice to either cede to the power of the dominant nation or engage the dominant nation in conflict to obtain power. An example of this can be seen during the nineteenth century, as the United States maintained expansionist campaigns in order to mitigate perceived threats by expelling potential adversaries from within its region. Additionally, it sought to achieve foot holdings within the regions of its adversaries. This created a perception of projected strength and capacity that allowed the United States to become the status quo. At primacy, this served to maintain the United States unencumbered in attempting to balance of power and advance its national interests by diffusing tactical reach of its adversaries. A key element is the in the significance of strategic proximity during these campaigns. Considering the United States possesses unique geopolitical advantages that allow for it borders to remain relatively unthreatened by other nations. Due to this relative level of security and stability, an exponential growth can be observed in the United States amassing of material assets, military might, and political affluence today. OSR proposes, that should China secure the technological capacity and the regional clout, it is likely to assume a similar paradigm and exert outward projections of power within its geographical region by removing adversarial powers. In order to advance its agenda Chinese may employ several mechanisms in order to establish its dominance through a series of military and diplomatic maneuvers. Consequentially, such actions neighboring nation-states could view such acts as sanctimonious ultimatums, therefore increasing the likelihood of countervailing acts in order to suppress Chinese power entrenchment.

A DISCUSSION ON DEFENSIVE STRUCTURAL REALISM AS IT PERTAINS TO THE CURRENT SINOAMERICAN SECURITY DEBATE.
Defensive Structural Realism introduces rational choice as the basis for actions taken by states. Additionally, it accounts for various factors to determine feasibility of offensive-defensive actions. Therefore, by taking into account the importance of systemic stability, self-defense, and reconciling these against the challenges imposed

37

SECTION 5

INTERDISCIPLINARY
Cassandra Acuna-Peterson Dr. K. Miller INT 308 October 30, 2010 Interdisciplinary Studies as an approach to an integral form of Learning, Thinking, and Knowledge Production

Abstract: This essay seeks to

explore concepts presented in Repkos text, Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory (2008), synthesizing a general understanding of interdisciplinary studies and its process as a agent with which to attain holistic illumination within the realms of pedagogic, reective, integrative knowledge production and its endeavors. It is my intention to present the interdisciplinary approach as an catalyst for a shift in current disciplinary paradigms.

Interdisciplinary studies and its processes can be characterized as a substantive and pragmatic response to the challenges and inadequacies presented by disciplinarily monistic views. As society evolves and cultural boundaries are blurred by globalism, humanity now confronts issues of previously unseen complexity and magnitude. Historically, traditional disciplines have presented their individual knowledge domains and specialized perspectives as a means to both qualify and quantify their intellectual enterprise and present solutions to societys problems, issues, or concerns. These attempts at modern-day problem solving through mono-disciplinary perspective offers a fragmented and often biased result, hinders cognitive uidity, and the development of a comprehensive resolution to universal concerns.

38

Repko denes Interdisciplinary studies as, a process of answering a question, solving a problem, or addressing a topic that is too broad or complex to be dealt with adequately by a single discipline. (Repko 2008) ) A contention, which he bases on, specic limitations the individual disciplines offer regarding taxonomies, studied phenomena, disciplinary knowledge, and research design. Despite these cognitive discords among disciplines, it is imperative to utilize disciplinary adequacy as a foundation for integrative knowledge formation. As such one can surmise that interdisciplinarity is founded within the traditional disciplines, but is ultimately learner and situationally centered. A process where the learner is prompted by need (this could simply be a need to dene a problem or satiate a curiosity) to engage in earnest inquiry and achieve an avant-guard understanding or resolution. Interdisciplinary approach inspires one to remain in a constant state of inquiry and assessment, consolidation, adaptation, creation, and innovation. A dynamic and integrative process whose aim is the achievement of broader perspective where phenomena, elements, and methodologies do not become the primary focus. By removing these from their traditional frame-works and sanctioned roles these are transformed into heuristics; refocusing energies on establishing relevant connections between traditional disciplines, their epistemologies and other non-linear knowledge formations. However, it is simply not enough to recognize their conicts and similarities and their relevance to a particular undertaking, this approach encourages the creation of disciplinary equanimity through shared symbolism, language and reciprocity. (Wolfe 2003; Repko 2006) Hence language and symbolism are removed from the disciplinary conict and are reintroduced as a unifying force. Reminiscent to a chaotic biblical tale from the book of Genesis, the world of academia is entrenched in a great linguistic schism; each spouting evidence and theory in an unintelligible code ponticating and postulating on the human condition and its challenges in accordance to their cultural systems. Although this may seem as an impressive display of breadth and depth of knowledge, it proves to be of little consequence in a real world application of this specialized knowledge. Bearing an uncanny similarity to the legendary Tower of Babel, the world of requires integration and collaboration. The tale emphasizes importance of language and mutual understanding in achieving a goal. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. In conclusion, interdisciplinary and its assumptions regarding disciplinary limitations and methodology of seek to evaluate, assess, integrate and create new knowledge. In essence leveling the cognitive elds, while transforming conicts into progressive expansions. While some may contend that interdisciplinarity seeks to unravel the academic institutions, it is my position that is does not.Interdisciplinary studies simply seek to a more evolved scope of learning (and

39

therefore teaching); communication and collaboration via multiculturalism, and quite possibly an idealized state of cognitive reciprocal synergy. Bibliography Repko, A. F. (2006). "Disciplining Interdisciplinarity: The Case for Textbooks." Issues in Integrative Studies(24): 112-142. Repko, A. F. (2008). Interdisciplinary research : process and theory. Los Angeles, SAGE. Wolfe, C. H., C. (2003). "Interdisciplinary writing assessment proles." Issues in Integrative Studies(21): 126-169.

40