POLI 244 Lecture Notes - Lecture 23: Great Power, Preemptive War, Hegemony
19 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Final exam focus
The ruse of China: The end of U.S. hegemony?
○
-
Bipolarity versus multipolarity
The stability of bipolar systems
○
The instability of bipolar systems
○
-
Is good or bad news if bipolarity or multipolarity will ensue?
Rise of China
Measure the power of China by looking at its gross
domestic process (economy)
§
Economies make predictions on what we already know
§
Real GDP growth for each country, Inflation, Yuan
appreciation tells when China will overtake the US
(which will be in 2028)
Chinese economy will overpower the US economy
□
More conservative (optimistic/pessimistic)
viewpoints from economists and therefore they
believe that China will overtake the US in a
different year - could be earlier or later
□
§
Economic power can be turned into military power and
can use it to coerce other states in the system
Military power can be used to leverage and
influence other powers in the system
□
§
Military spending between the two countries
The US spends more on defense than any other
country in the world
□
There is a decline in trend in the US and there is a
constant rise in trend of Chinese military spending
□
§
In terms of economic power, China is growing faster
than the US
Growing their military power slowly
□
Gap will become smaller and the Chinese will grow
their power at a faster rate
□
Unless something unexpected happens there will
be parity, in 2 - 3 decades if nothing happens then
the military and economic power will become a
rival to the US
Unipolarity will be over and this will be
translated into a different system
®
□
§
○
Is bipolarity good or bad news?
Many realists say it is good news, it doesn't generate
great power wars
Main lesson comes from the Cold War □
Great powers had great differences in ideologies,
national interest, etc. but were able to avoid great
power wars during the 50 years
□
§
○
We will soon miss the Cold War
○
The Cold War was a long peace
Were many wars fought with minor power (proxy wars)
Fought through other lesser powers (Vietnam) □
§
Other realists say what accounts for long peace was not
bipolarity, it was the fact that they were nuclear super
powers
Deterred each other from going to war □
Not easy to distinguish the cause of the peace □
§
○
Was it bipolarity or nuclear weapons?
Nuclear weapons remained after the war but bipolarity
was gone
Great powers haven't happened □
§
○
-
Stability of bipolarity
Neorealism
War occurs due to chain-ganging
Great power get dragged into dyadic conflicts
(when they can't afford to lose an ally)
Dyadic conflicts (3, 4, 5th states are dragged
into a conflict between two states)
®
□
Superpowers under bipolarity can afford to lose an
ally (since it is too small to make a difference)
Loss will affect the balance of power in the
system
®
□
Bipolarity is more stable than multipolarity
Only true in multipolar systems
®
□
§
War occurs due to external buck-passing
In symmetric alliances each ally expects someone
else to get dragged into another ally's conflict
□
Buck-passing encourages the aggressor's
expansionism (as she expects that alliance
commitments won't be honoured)
□
Alliances under bipolarity are asymmetric; the
superpower is always expected to act
□
Multipolarity breeds external buck-passing □
Bipolarity is more stable than multipolarity □
§
War occurs due to internal buck-passing
Each great power fails to pay its share of internal
balancing (arming up), expecting that others will
increase their military spending and defend the
alliance
□
Internal buck-passing allows the aggressor to
overpower her "lazy" rivals, and encourages the
aggressor's expansionism (as she expects the
alliance to be too weak to stop her)
□
Alliances under bipolarity are asymmetric; the
superpower cannot rely on its allies' military
spending
□
§
Flaws
1 and 2 are mutually inconsistent
Either alliance commitments drag states or
are superfluous
®
Either superpowers can let their allies go or
they will step up to defend their allies
®
□
To static
Empirically, can't explain Cold War chain-
ganging
The US got dragged into confrontation
with the USSR over Korea an Berlin
(overreactions?)
Reputation-building
}
Future balance of power
}
◊
®
□
§
○
-
The instability of bipolarity
Classical realism
War has to do with inherent expansionism that great
powers have
The power powerful a state is, the more powerful
a state will become
□
§
The more powerful, the more aggressive
§
Balance of power prevents war
§
Multipolarity facilitates balancing
As long as alliances are flexible □
§
Multipolarity is more stable than bipolarity
§
○
Flaw: too static (snapshot-based)
Powerful alliance against Germany in WWI
§
Hegemonic wars between equal superpowers
§
○
Gilpin's theory of hegemonic war (implies bipolarity is
unstable)
Staibility comes from unipolarity (hegemony)
§
War breaks out when a rising power catches up to the
hegemon
§
Approaching a balance of power makes war more likely
§
○
Flaw: ignoring multipolar dynamics
The effect of multipolarity is unexplored
§
○
Dynamic differential theory
War is caused by
Power gaps
Military power
®
Economic power
®
Potential power: all capital and resources
that you can use to fuel your economy
(dormant resources you can exploit to fuel
the economy)
®
□
Growth rates (power trends) □
§
War is caused by the decline in relative power
The declining power initiates the (preventative)
war, because it makes little sense to initiate war
while on the rise - what about the "pre-emptive
war"?
The one who starts the war gets the military
advantage
®
Rational to start war now rather than to wait
for hegemon to start a pre-emptive war
®
If there is no first strike advantage, then the
best thing is to wait until parity is acquired
If hegemon wants to attack me better,
because defense has the advantage
here
◊
Pre-emptive war would make sense in
terms of rising challenger
◊
®
□
§
What about polarity?
Under multipolarity, the declinding power is likely
to face a coalition (not a single power) -
deterrence
The same goes for a rising power
®
□
Under multipolarity, the declining power may still
be far ahead of the 2nd great power in the system
□
Under bipolarity, the more the declining power
waits, the more dominant the other super power
becomes
□
In conclusinon multipolarity is more stable than
bipolarity
□
§
Triggers war: declining power of the superpower
§
○
-
Lecture 23 -The Rise of China
Monday, November 20, 2017
2:32 PM
Final exam focus
The ruse of China: The end of U.S. hegemony?
○
-
Bipolarity versus multipolarity
The stability of bipolar systems
○
The instability of bipolar systems
○
-
Is good or bad news if bipolarity or multipolarity will ensue?
Rise of China
Measure the power of China by looking at its gross
domestic process (economy)
§
Economies make predictions on what we already know
§
Real GDP growth for each country, Inflation, Yuan
appreciation tells when China will overtake the US
(which will be in 2028)
Chinese economy will overpower the US economy □
More conservative (optimistic/pessimistic)
viewpoints from economists and therefore they
believe that China will overtake the US in a
different year - could be earlier or later
□
§
Economic power can be turned into military power and
can use it to coerce other states in the system
Military power can be used to leverage and
influence other powers in the system
□
§
Military spending between the two countries
The US spends more on defense than any other
country in the world
□
There is a decline in trend in the US and there is a
constant rise in trend of Chinese military spending
□
§
In terms of economic power, China is growing faster
than the US
Growing their military power slowly □
Gap will become smaller and the Chinese will grow
their power at a faster rate
□
Unless something unexpected happens there will
be parity, in 2 - 3 decades if nothing happens then
the military and economic power will become a
rival to the US
Unipolarity will be over and this will be
translated into a different system
®
□
§
○
Is bipolarity good or bad news?
Many realists say it is good news, it doesn't generate
great power wars
Main lesson comes from the Cold War
□
Great powers had great differences in ideologies,
national interest, etc. but were able to avoid great
power wars during the 50 years
□
§
○
We will soon miss the Cold War
○
The Cold War was a long peace
Were many wars fought with minor power (proxy wars)
Fought through other lesser powers (Vietnam)
□
§
Other realists say what accounts for long peace was not
bipolarity, it was the fact that they were nuclear super
powers
Deterred each other from going to war
□
Not easy to distinguish the cause of the peace
□
§
○
Was it bipolarity or nuclear weapons?
Nuclear weapons remained after the war but bipolarity
was gone
Great powers haven't happened
□
§
○
-
Stability of bipolarity
Neorealism
War occurs due to chain-ganging
Great power get dragged into dyadic conflicts
(when they can't afford to lose an ally)
Dyadic conflicts (3, 4, 5th states are dragged
into a conflict between two states)
®
□
Superpowers under bipolarity can afford to lose an
ally (since it is too small to make a difference)
Loss will affect the balance of power in the
system
®
□
Bipolarity is more stable than multipolarity
Only true in multipolar systems
®
□
§
War occurs due to external buck-passing
In symmetric alliances each ally expects someone
else to get dragged into another ally's conflict
□
Buck-passing encourages the aggressor's
expansionism (as she expects that alliance
commitments won't be honoured)
□
Alliances under bipolarity are asymmetric; the
superpower is always expected to act
□
Multipolarity breeds external buck-passing □
Bipolarity is more stable than multipolarity □
§
War occurs due to internal buck-passing
Each great power fails to pay its share of internal
balancing (arming up), expecting that others will
increase their military spending and defend the
alliance
□
Internal buck-passing allows the aggressor to
overpower her "lazy" rivals, and encourages the
aggressor's expansionism (as she expects the
alliance to be too weak to stop her)
□
Alliances under bipolarity are asymmetric; the
superpower cannot rely on its allies' military
spending
□
§
Flaws
1 and 2 are mutually inconsistent
Either alliance commitments drag states or
are superfluous
®
Either superpowers can let their allies go or
they will step up to defend their allies
®
□
To static
Empirically, can't explain Cold War chain-
ganging
The US got dragged into confrontation
with the USSR over Korea an Berlin
(overreactions?)
Reputation-building
}
Future balance of power
}
◊
®
□
§
○
-
The instability of bipolarity
Classical realism
War has to do with inherent expansionism that great
powers have
The power powerful a state is, the more powerful
a state will become
□
§
The more powerful, the more aggressive
§
Balance of power prevents war
§
Multipolarity facilitates balancing
As long as alliances are flexible □
§
Multipolarity is more stable than bipolarity
§
○
Flaw: too static (snapshot-based)
Powerful alliance against Germany in WWI
§
Hegemonic wars between equal superpowers
§
○
Gilpin's theory of hegemonic war (implies bipolarity is
unstable)
Staibility comes from unipolarity (hegemony)
§
War breaks out when a rising power catches up to the
hegemon
§
Approaching a balance of power makes war more likely
§
○
Flaw: ignoring multipolar dynamics
The effect of multipolarity is unexplored
§
○
Dynamic differential theory
War is caused by
Power gaps
Military power
®
Economic power
®
Potential power: all capital and resources
that you can use to fuel your economy
(dormant resources you can exploit to fuel
the economy)
®
□
Growth rates (power trends) □
§
War is caused by the decline in relative power
The declining power initiates the (preventative)
war, because it makes little sense to initiate war
while on the rise - what about the "pre-emptive
war"?
The one who starts the war gets the military
advantage
®
Rational to start war now rather than to wait
for hegemon to start a pre-emptive war
®
If there is no first strike advantage, then the
best thing is to wait until parity is acquired
If hegemon wants to attack me better,
because defense has the advantage
here
◊
Pre-emptive war would make sense in
terms of rising challenger
◊
®
□
§
What about polarity?
Under multipolarity, the declinding power is likely
to face a coalition (not a single power) -
deterrence
The same goes for a rising power
®
□
Under multipolarity, the declining power may still
be far ahead of the 2nd great power in the system
□
Under bipolarity, the more the declining power
waits, the more dominant the other super power
becomes
□
In conclusinon multipolarity is more stable than
bipolarity
□
§
Triggers war: declining power of the superpower
§
○
-
Lecture 23 -The Rise of China
Monday, November 20, 2017 2:32 PM
Document Summary
Measure the power of china by looking at its gross domestic process (economy) Economies make predictions on what we already know. Real gdp growth for each country, inflation, yuan appreciation tells when china will overtake the us (which will be in 2028) More conservative (optimistic/pessimistic) viewpoints from economists and therefore they believe that china will overtake the us in a different year - could be earlier or later. Economic power can be turned into military power and can use it to coerce other states in the system. Military power can be used to leverage and influence other powers in the system. The us spends more on defense than any other country in the world. There is a decline in trend in the us and there is a constant rise in trend of chinese military spending. In terms of economic power, china is growing faster than the us.
