Heg sustainable indict



Download 169.79 Kb.
Page69/77
Date27.06.2021
Size169.79 Kb.
#147137
1   ...   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   ...   77

REGIONAL BALANCING

Regional hegemony fails—WMD spread and interventionism by fading powers check


Merom 3

(Gil, senior lecturer @ University of Sydney, PhD @ Cornell, 2003, Journal of Strategic Studies, 26:1, 109-135, DOI: 10.1080/01402390308559310, “Realist Hypotheses on Regional Peace,” Taylor and Francis, Accessed 7/30/14, JC)



No local state is going to rise to regional hegemony in engaged regions simply because systemic actors are not going to allow it. In contested regions competing great powers would prevent the rise of their adversaries' protege to hegemony by supporting its local opposition. In short, the local power structure in contested regions is expected to reflect systemic rivalries and exclude the possibility of local hegemony. Some suggest that a local state may rise to hegemonic position in captive regions presumably because it could serve as a proxy policeman of the systemic master. According to realist logic, however, the odds are against such development because it would violate fundamental principles of power politics. Obviously, a systemic master would be in a lesser power position vis-A-vis a hypothetical local hegemon as compared to its position vis-a-vis a multitude of local actors among whom power is distributed more evenly.22 Hence the imperial logic of 'divide and rule' and the foundations of certain realist analyses and recommendations. For example, Posen and Ross describe the vision of the realist strategy of preponderance in the following way: In East Asia, the United States would maintain a military presence sufficient to ensure regional stability and prevent the emergence of a power vacuum or regional hegemon. The same approach applied to the Middle East and Southwest Asia, where the United States intended to remain the preeminent extra-regional power. Hence also the preference of a systemic actor, as Martin Indyk notes with regard to the US, to be a 'custodian of [the] region's balance-~f-power',~~ rather than accept local hegemony in captive regions. The 1991 Gulf War may be seen as a sort of empirical corroboration. Geoffrey Kemp and others have noted that Iraq was not destroyed or weakened fatally during the war for the sake of regional stability.'Tet what underlies this 'regional stability' is the fact that Iraq was spared because it was expected to check (again), in the future, a (regional) hegemony-seeking Iran. Further Analysis of Autonomous Regions: 'Intractable' versus 'Drifting' Regions The logic of relative power and varying interest leads to further division of autonomous regions into intractable and drifting. Theoretically, regions may become intractable either 'by default' - when the power projection capacity of global actors is limited, or 'by design7 - when regional actors can stand up to global powers. In reality, however, no intractable regions can today form by default because modern technologies enable systemic actors to project power everywhere (although most of them would consider this unreasonably costly). At the same time, modem technologies may also help create intractable regions by design. In particular, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and delivery-means provides regional actors with the potential power to deter systemic engagement. In short, intractable regions may be created in the future because technology may alter the balance of power between actors on the regional and global levels.26 The South-Central Asian region, from Iran to India, could be approaching the status of an intractable region as a result of such change. Drifting regions differ from intractable regions in that they are the offspring of indifference rather than defiance. They are free because global actors see no value in them. Realists are inclined to disagree over which circumstances encourage the creation of drifting regions. Some realists believe that hegemonic preoccupation with prestige and credibility induces regional intervention2' - that is, they would suggest that unipolar systems impede the creation of drifting regions. Other realists believe that systemic competition breeds intervention and therefore one would expect them to regard multipolar systems as discouraging the creation of such regions.28 Among these scholars, those who believe that competition is most intense in bipolar systems (and thus, that the negative value of regions increases) must be convinced that drifting regions are least likely to develop in such a setting." They may support their argument by reference to the underlying logic of formulations of the American administration during the Cold War (including NSC-68 and the Domino Theory), and the excessive intervention of both superpowers during this period in remote corners of Asia, Latin America and Africa.


Download 169.79 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   ...   77




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2022
send message

    Main page