>Top 6. Six Paradigms of International Politics:
- Three stages of viewpoint:
- 1) Philosophical thinking
- 2) Paradigmatic thinking
- 3) Policy level thinking
- Meaning of life, or Mission of life:
Without keeping these in mind, we won't be able to discuss things with consistency. Talking this category of values in Japanese seems rather difficult to express in proper terms. And no such discussion is done in even Japanese universities.
- My professors of international politics at University of Tokyo are: 1) one left-wing conservative of Japanese constitution, 2) Pro-American conservatives (2 served as the brains of former prime ministers)
- while studying international politics, foreign policy and economic policy at two US universities, I noticed a clear difference between those taught at Japanese and US universities.
- It turned out that Japan's conservative professors of international politics are only arguing to justify postwar dependence on US (which had been the policies adopted by successive prime ministers such as Yoshida, Sato, and Nakasone.)
- Japan is still having policy discussions without paradigmatic thinking. During 76 years after WWII, Japan has not thought about it by itself.
- The phenomenon that liberals and conservatives become at odds with each other has occurred since the French Revolution. There are two type of conservatives: one, called reactionary conservative, always opposes the left. Another type of conservatives is called cultural (or classical, or orthodox) conservative.
- Six paradigms of international politics:
- Liberals:
- Interdependence school
- Institutional school
- Democratic peace theory
- Conservatives:
- Offensive realism
- Defensive realism
- Hegemonic stability theory
- >Top Characteristics of each faction:
- Liberals believe that world peace can be maintained by emphasizing enlightenment, progressivism, rationalism, human rights, and humanism since mid 18C.
- Conservatives consider what decisions to make reviewing the past 2,500 years trends, particularly thinking 16C humanism, 17C classicism, and Christian theology (original sin). Human beings are inherently prone to lying, self-righteousness, and self-deception. Regarding the last self-deception, the person who cannot recognize that he is doing something wrong. Most of humans, 70-80%, tend to become insensitive to something inconvenient or disadvantageous to themselves (Cognitive dissonance) If society and nation as a whole are like this, they will not realize their own mistakes. International politics has such a trouble-containing structure.
-
- Cognitive dissonance: when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent.
- Confirmation bias: people display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes.
|
- >Top Liberal faction-1 (interdependent):
- At beginning 20C, trade and mutual investment between Europe and US became active, and mutual dependence increased. In 1910, British Norman Angel (Labor party politician, and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize) described the balance of power and war as outdated in his writing "Great Illusion." describing. He insisted that not only interdependent economics structure among countries (borderless economy) can deter wars. but arms competition is an anachronism. However, WWI actually broke out four years later. It is obvious that humanity could not learn from the past history lessons. Actually, after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the end of the Cold war, the paradigm of interdependence once again revived popularity around the world.
- During 1989-2008, the Great Financial Depression; this theory of interdependence became popular again and glorified globalism.
- The post-war US policy toward China promoted policies based on this mutual dependence policy (so-called Engagement policy: if China becomes rich, it will become peace-loving and the risk of war will decrease.) US approved technology transfer, most-favored nation treatment, and joining to WTO.
- >Top Liberal faction-2 (Institutional school):
- believes that enhancing the international system based on international law can promote peace.
- In the economic field, international systems function well. But it does not necessarily go well because it is a zero-sum game and every country eagers to share advantageous position.
- For the past 70 years, hegemonic powers such as US, Russia, China and Israel have not been punished for pursuing military policies unilaterally, and other countries have been unable to stand up against the hegemonic states. It was typically declared by the Chief legal counsel Abraham Sofaer of US State Department. Although the United Nations charter was adopted in 1945, which stipulates that the unilateral use of military force is considered a violation of the international law. But actually hundreds of times of military actions were carried out around the world in disregard of the UN charter. The UN Security Council is unable to fulfill its peacekeeping function. In particular, US and Russia are keen to increase their client countries and have promoted regime changes through illegal use of forces such as coup d'état in various developing countries. Thus it became clear the extremely limited nature of the international law from the said statement of senior US State Department official.
- >Top Liberal faction-3 (Democratic peace theory, or peace through democracy):
- After the Cold War, Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations officially advocated adopting such Democratic peace theory, but actually they did not took actions following it.
- The theory asserts that if the world became democratic nations, which are peace-loving nations and wars would disappear from the world. The US media does not believe the theory either, but they pay lip service to democracy aimed by the theory.
- Regarding the original democracy, ancient Greece about 2,500 years ago, Athens was a democratic state, while Sparta was militaristic state. Athens was more belligerent, who more conducted unilateral military intervention. During the Peloponnesian War in 5C BC, may Greek city states sided with Sparta.
- UK was also a democratic country from 17C to 19C, but in realty UK exerted itself to expand its colonies as an imperialist country.
- >Top There is a room for debate whether it is desirable for the world all to become democratic countries. International political scientists such as Samuel Huntington, George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz believe democracy could be functionable on the conditions of: 1) thorough rule of law, 2) competent bureaucratic administrative structure, 3) independent judicial system.
- US, especially Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama administrations, have waged wars of intervention around the world. As a result, US cited various reasons such as anti-terrorist, possibility of the presence of mass destructive weapons, or oppression of religious or ethnic minorities, etc., insisting to expand democracy rather than US hegemony, and carried out coup d'etat or regime change into favorable government.
- If the democratic leaders of other countries showed anti-US stance, US CIA and State Department would collapse the government is various illegal methods, such as 1) in 1953 overthrew the Jacobo Guzman government and restored Pahlavi dynasty by coup d'etat (PBScuccess operation), 2) in 1955 in South Vietnam, established US-backed Ngo Dinh Diem government, 3) in 1964 in Brazil, established pro-US Castelo Branco government by coup d'etat, 4) on 1973/9/11 in Chile Allende government was overthrown and Pinochet military regime was established by coup d'etat, 5) in 2011 in Libya, Qaddafi regime was attacked by US and NATO and was collapsed, 6) in 2013 in Egypt Mohammed Mursi government of Muslim Brotherhood was ousted by coup d'etat, 7) in 2014 in Ukraine, President Yanukovish was ousted by violent anti-government demonstration led by US (Maidan Revolution).
- Albright, Secretary of State in Clinton administration said ("the price is worth it.") it was the role of US to use unilaterally military force, and insisted on the legitimacy of the policy even though 800K Iraqis died due to US economic and medical sanctions against Iraq.
- >Top As the security of US is linked to the securities around the world, US will use military force anytime and anywhere to protect human rights around the world.
- When W. Bush administration invaded Iraq in 2003 on the ground of weapons of mass destruction, later emphasized that US occupied Iraq for the greater objective securing democratic peace in the world.
- In 2010 Obama administration also used military force for the common goods (which were defined by US government). In 2011 US intervened in Libya and ousted Qaddafi government on the grounds of suspicion of preparation of nuclear weapons development, consequently caused 800K casualties in civil war. Again, in 2014-2017, US intervened in Syrian civil war on the grounds of suspicion of using chemical weapon and etc., which caused world largest 6.6M refugees and 700K-800K casualties.
- Structure of international politics:
- features of the past 3000 years:
The world government has never established. It has been essentially anarchy situation without real governing organizations; neither world government, nor world legislative assembly, nor world court system.
- US, Russia, China, and also Israel are hegemonic powers. The first three countries are permanent members of US Security Council, having veto power. Although Israel is not a permanent member of the Security Council, but effectively it has exercised veto power through US: In 1948, when Israel occupied 78% of Palestinian land, and in 1967 Israel occupied the remaining 22%. (Arab-Israeli Wars: 1st in 1948, 2nd in 1956, 3rd (6 days) in 1967; 4th in 1973) US exercised its veto power at US Security Council; whose vetoes 65-70 were done by US, and more than half of them were veto in defense of Israel. For the past 555 years, it continues such a grotesque situation that Israel has exercised most the de facto veto power.
- Although US government officially says it support "two-state solution", US always use its veto power in UN Security Council to reject all proposals to solve the Palestine problem.
- The main actor is always the nation state.
- Historically Balance of Power has been the principle. There has been no other way but to balance it. China has had versatile experiences in the theories of Balance of Power since the Spring and Autumn Warring State period (770-453BC), and it still keeps effective diplomatic power today. Balance of Power diplomacy has also been demonstrated among the city-state in Ancient Greece, Turkey, and Italy, and since the Middle Ages, 6 or 7 states in Western Europe have always .
- Balance of Power cannot be achieved by political ideology alone. The reason for this is that there has been no common standards of value judgment among civilizations, or in terms of political ideology, economic structure, or religious doctrine.
- Compliance with treaties not actually enforces in international politics when a certain country's security is threatened. It is natural that every country prioritizes it own survival.
- Japanese conservatives also tend to discuss mixing up with above mentioned the liberal theories.
- Conservatives:
- >Top Conservative faction-1 (Aggressive realist):
During the last 500 years, four or five major powers have engaged in power struggle and power competition among them, and have maintained each dominant position in the international politics.
- This idea remained effective until mid 18C. This is because only king and nobles participated in the war. However, after the French Revolution, the entire nation was mobilized by universal conscription system. Through the revolutionary movement took place in Europe in 1848, the consciousness of the ordinary people of various countries have changed. Since then, the people have expressed their opinions in foreign affairs issues. At the same time the sentiment of nationalist have become commonplace. The war itself became more intense, and the number of casualty increased. If defeated the country may become bankrupt due to huge reparations. In this respect, it is obvious that in modern ages, the Defensive realist make more sense.
- In 2022, the world's total military expenditure is USD2,240B, of which US is overwhelmingly No.1, spending USD877B (39.2%), which shares 12% of all US budget. Russia is USD86.3B became 5th to 3rd position from the previous year. US should be more than enough to spend less than half the budget to defend that country, including normal forces, nuclear forces and cyber forces.
- As of 2022/9 there are more than 170K military troops across 178 countries, with the most in Japan (54K), Germany (36K), and South Korea (25K), having US military bases 120, 119, and 73 respectively. There are around 750 US military bases in at lease 80 countries.
- US has military alliances with 67 countries, which means US has always risks to be involved in unnecessary military conflicts. Also US has overseas military bases in more than 180 countries
- After the end of the Cold War, US has adopted Offensive Realism, or Hegemonic Policy, and has intervened in wars in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc, but as a result, US's position has not improved
- >Top Conservative faction-2 (Defensive realist):
- This idea does not intentionally provoke other countries or take aggressive action, rather focusing on maintenance the survival and current safety condition of its own country, which has been asserted typically by George Kennan who proposed Containment Policy against USSR, Samuel Huntington, the writer of Clash of Civilization, Lloyd Hartman Elliott, established Elliott School of International Affairs are Defensive conservationism, or Classical conservatism.
- Water Lippmann (proposed the role of journalism in democracy, and the term 'stereo type.'), and Kennith Walts (proposed that the world would be more stable by the increase, ten or so, of nuclear-weapon states) agreed with G. Kennan during WWII, insisting US, UK, and Japan should agree not to be involved in land wars in Eurasia.
- Otto von Bismarck, Charles-Maurice Talleyrand-Peigord, and Charles de Gaulle practiced Defensive realism and were successful. Bismarck created the best army in the world during the last years of the German Empire, but he insisted not to begin a winnable war. Winning a war is not a good thing, nor it could not contributed the nation's interest. If the nation won, it would be in a quagmire. Since he formed German Empire, (called Iron Chancellor) of German Confederation, he transformed his stance into clear defensive, and promoted balance of power diplomacy to maintain German position in a peaceful Europe.
- After the Russo-Japanese war in 1905, Japan should have turned into Defensive realist and should not have tried to control China and Korea, considering the political, economic, and military costs.
- >Top Conservative faction-3 (Hegemonic Stability theorist):
- In this view, both US and China pursue the hegemonic stability policy; each viewing itself as the center of the world. They are promoting a theory that clarified hierarchy rather than equilibrium, and in that sense, both US and Chins are said to be ego-centric nations.
- Joseph Neigh advocated the maintenance of hegemony (by influencing US culture, democracy, human rights, etc.) by combining hard power and soft power. He commented that China is also eager about US's soft power, so it would not go against US.
Codoleezza Rice said she wanted Iraq to become like post-war Japan, as Japan is eager to be involved and controlled by US policy.
- John Ikenberry and Richard Haass; criticizes that US focusing on wars against terrorism as the main objective of US diplomacy, which will weaken the function with allies and international organizations, and which will not serve US national interests.
Richard Haass also emphasized that the importance of negotiation at the table rather than on the battlefield regarding Ukraine war.
- T.V. Wolt, comments that after winning the Cold War, US aims to remake other countries as designed by US.
- George Kenna, comments that the US policy has been to remake each country as per the US image.
- Barry r. Posen: author of "Restraint.', comments that the Japanese do not assert themselves at all in their alliance with US. They even don't know how the US bases in Japan are used. Japanese people have nothing to say on this matter. The purpose of US military presence in Japan is actually to prevent Japan from its acquiring nuclear weapons. Japan should eventually become independent from its current dependence on US. Also as the nuclear proliferation in East Asia is inevitable, US should recognize Japan 's nuclear possession.
- Conflict structure between US vs Russia+China:
- As US has imposed server economic sanctions on Russia and has encouraged Russia and China to grow closer.
- Even now, in terms of GDP (PPP), Russia plus China exceeds US by more than 50%. And in 2028 GDP (nominal) of Russia plus China will surpass that of US. Considering the military spending is about 3% of GDP, Russia plus China will surpass US in terms of military spending. If that happens, US will not be able to wage war against China. Or as an alternatively US needs to make China's economic growth below 2% until 2028.
|
6. 国際政治学の６つのパラダイム
- 物の考え方(Viewpoint)の３段階:
- 1) Phylosophical thinking (哲学レベル)
- 2) Paradigmatic thinking (学派レベル)
- 3) Policy level thinking (政策レベル)
- Meaning of life, or Mission of life:
これら意識しながら考えないと一貫性の議論にならない。価値観がこの区分での思考は日本語になじまない面がある。大学でもやっていない。
- 東大での国際政治学の授業: 1) 護憲左派1人、2) 親米保守 (2人は総理大臣ブレーンを務めた)
- 米国２大学での国際政治学、外交政策、経済政策を学ぶ過程で、日米大学で教えている国際政治学の質の違いに気づいた。
- 日本の保守派の国際政治学者は、戦後の対米依存主義(吉田･佐藤･中曽根等の歴代総理の政策) を正当化するための議論に過ぎないことが判明。
- 日本は未だにパラダイムレベルでの議論のない政策議論しかしていない。76年間、自身で考えてない。
- 仏革命後、リベラルと保守派は、左右の対立になった。左翼に反論する反動保守。もう一つの保守は、Cultral (classical, orthodox) conservativeである。
- 国際政治学の６つのパラダイム:
- 相互依存派 (Interdependence school)
- 制度学派 (Institutional school)
- 民主的平和の理論 (Democratic peace theory)
- 保守派:
- 攻撃的なパラダイム(Offensive realism)
- 防御的なパラダイム(Defensive realism)
- 覇権安定論 (Hegemonic stability theory)
- 各派閥の特徴:
- リベラル派は、18C中頃からの啓蒙主義、進歩主義、理性主義、人権主義、ヒューマニズムを重視していけば世界平和が維持されるという考え。
- 保守派は、過去2500年の推移を見て、どう判断すべきかを考える。16C人文主義、17Cの古典主義、キリスト教神学 (Original sin)の人間感に基づいて考える。偽言、独善、自己欺瞞から逃れない。自己欺瞞 (Self deception) 自分が悪いことをしている認識がない。70-80%に人間は (Congnitive dissonance)、都合の悪いことの不感症である。社会･国家全体がそうであれば自分自身の誤りに気づけないのである。国際政治は困った構造を内包している。
- リベラル派-1 (相互依存派):
- 20C初頭に欧米間で貿易･相互投資に盛んになり、相互依存が高まった。英国のNorman Angel (労働党政治家、Nobel平和賞受賞) 1910に"Great Illusion"執筆し、Balance of Powerも戦争も時代遅れである。相互依存の経済構造 (Borderless economy)が戦争を抑止する。軍事競争もanachronismである。但し、その4年後にWWIが勃発。但し、人類は」過去の歴史教訓から学ばない。1989のBerlin壁崩壊後、冷戦が終結したので、再度、相互依存のParadigmが世界中で人気となった。
- 1989-2008の世界金融大恐慌、またこの相互依存派の理論が流行し、Globalismを礼賛。
- 戦後の米国の対中政策もこの相互依存派に基づいた政策を展開 (対中Engagement関与政策 -中国が豊かになればPeace-lovingとなり、戦争リスクが減る。技術供与、最恵国待遇、WTO加盟)。
- リベラル派-2 (制度学派):
- 国際法に基づく国際制度を充実させれば平和が促進される。
- 経済では国際制度が機能する。軍事外交面では、本音ではZero-sum的なので必ずしもうまく行かない。各国とも、自国が有利に立ちたいと思っている。
- 過去70年間、US, Russia, China, Islaelなどの覇権国は、一方的に軍事政策を推進しても処罰されないし、他の国は、覇権主義的な国に対しては対抗できない。その認識の典型として、1985-90国務省首席法律顧問Abraham Sofaerは、国際法は役に立たないと断言した。1945に国連憲章が採択され一方的な軍事力行使は国際法違反とされたが、実際には世界で何百回も国際無視の軍事行動が行われた。UN安保理事会は平和維持の機能を果たせていない。特に、米ロは、自分の属国を増やすことに熱心で、途上国における非合法的な実力行使(Coup d'état)によってRegime change政策を推進してきており、国際法を無視した行動を採ってきた。このように、国際法は極めて限界があることが、米国国務省高官の発言によっても明らかである。
- リベラル派-3 (民主的平和の理論; 民主主義による平和の理論):
- 冷戦後のClinton, Bush, Obama政権は、Democratic Peace Theory (Paradigm)を公式に採用を唱えたが、それを守った訳ではない。
- 民主主義による平和は、世界中が民主国家 (Peace loving国家)になれば、世界から戦争はなくなるという理論。米国のマスコミも信じていないが、口先ではDemocracyを礼賛している。
- 2500年前の古代ギリシアは、Athensが民主主義で、Spartaが軍国主義国家。Athensの方がよほど一方的軍事介入して好戦的だった。Spartaの方が弱いものいじめをする頻度がすくなかった。BC5Cのペロポネス戦争えは、ギリシアの多くの都市国家はSpartaの味方をした。
- 英国も17-19Cは民主主義国家だったが、実際には帝国主義国家として植民地拡大に奔走した。
- 世界中が、民主主義国家になるのが本当に望ましいことか議論の余地がある。国際政治学者Samuel Huntington, Geoge Kennan, Henry Kinssinger, Morgenthaw, Kenneth Waltzなどは、民主主義を実行できる要素は、法治主義(Rule of Law)が徹底している、competentが官僚制度による行政機構、独立した司法制度があることである。
- 米国は、特にClinton, Bush, Obama各政権は、世界中に内政干渉と軍事干渉で、米国の言うこときかせるための口実として、米国の覇権ではなく、民主主義を広めるためとし、人権擁護、反テロリスト、反大量破壊兵器、少数宗教･民族圧迫などを理由として内政干渉した。20数カ国に内政干渉、Cout d'etatを実行した。
- 他の国の民主主義リーダーが、反米的な場合は、CIA,や国務省は、1953年coup d'etatによるモサデク大統領追放し、パーレビ王朝を復活、1954 年Jacobo Guzman政権の転覆 (PBSuccess作戦)、1955年南ベトナムで、米国支援のゴジンジェム政権成立、1964年ブラジルでは coup d'etatで親米派のCastelo Branco政権設立、1973/9/11にcoup d'etatで、チリのアジェンデ政権崩壊させ、ピノチェト軍事政権を樹立、2011年には、リビアのカダフィ政権が米国･NATOの攻撃を受け政権崩壊、2013年エジプトのムスリム同胞団のMohammed Mursi政権を軍事coup d'etatで追放。2014には、ウクライナのYanukovish大統領を米国指導の反政府デモで追放 (Maidan革命)。
- クリントン政権オルブライト国務長官、一方的に軍事力行使しなければならないのは米国の役割とし、Iraqに対する経済･医療品の制裁によってイラク人が80万人死亡しても政策の正当性を主張 ("the price is worth it")。
- 米国の安全保障は、世界中の安全保障と連携している。米国は、世界中の人権擁護のために、いつでもどこでも軍事力を行使するとした。
- Bush政権は、2003年に大量破壊兵器を理由に侵攻した時も、我々は世界のdemocratic peaceという大きな目標のためにイラクを占領したと表明。
- 2010 Obama政権も Common goods（米国政府が定義した）のために軍事力を行使したと主張。2011には、米国はリビアに干渉し、核兵器開発準備をしたという理由で、カダフィを放逐し、内戦によって80万人の犠牲者を出した。また2014-17に亘って米国はシリアの内戦に、化学兵器使用の疑いなどを理由に干渉し、最大の660万の難民と70-80万人の犠牲者を出した。
- 国際政治の構造
- 過去3000年間の特徴:
世界政府は一度も成立しなかった。真の統治機関のない無政府状態だった。世界政府･世界立法議会･世界裁判所制度は存在しなかった。
- 米国、ロシア、中国、Israelは覇権国。かつ前３カ国は国連常任理事国で拒否権を持つ。Israelは常任理事国ではないが、米国を通じて実質拒否権行使してきた。1948年パレスチナの土地78%を占拠し、1967年には残り22%も占拠しても米国は全て拒否権を行使した。(第1〜4次中東戦争) 米国は国連安保理事会での65-70%拒否権行使。内、半分以上はIsrael擁護のための拒否権行使。過去55年間は、最も拒否権を行使してきたのは実質的にIsraelというグロテスクな状況が続いている。
- 米国政府は公式には、Two state solutionを支持するといいながら、国連安保理事会で拒否権を使ってパレスチナ問題の解決提案を潰してきた歴史がある。
- 常に、行動主体は常にNation state優先主義。
- 歴史的にはBalance of Powerが原則。Balanceする以外方法がなかったのである。中国では、春秋戦国時代以来、Balance of Powerの経験が豊富なことが今日でも外交上手に通じている。Balance of Power外交は、古代ギリシア, Turkey, Italy都市国家間でも経験してきたし、中世以降は、西欧では常に6-7つの国家がBalance of Powerの上に成立してきた。
- 政治イデオロギーだけではBalance of Powerは成り立たない。その理由は、共通の価値判断基盤が各文明間、政治イデオロギー、経済の仕組み、宗教の教義の面も存在しなかったことによる。
- 条約の遵守は、国際政治では、自国の安全が脅かされるような事態になれば、実際には実行されない。どの国も当然ながら自国のsurvivalが優先する。
- 日本の保守派も前述のリベラル派の議論をごちゃまぜで使っている.
- 保守派:
- 保守派-1 (攻撃的なrealist):
過去500年間は、4-5つの大国が国際政治で優位な立場を確保しつつ、Power stuggle, Power competition を実施してきた。
- この考えは、18C中頃まで有効だった。王様と貴族のみ参戦していたからである。しかし仏革命の後は、国民皆兵によって全国民が動員されるようになった。1848年の欧州での革命運動を通じて、諸国民の意識が変わったのである。それ以降、国民が外交にも発言権を有するようになった。またそれ以降Nationalism に訴える動きが一般化した。戦争自体が熾烈化し、戦死者も増大し、敗戦すると巨大な賠償金によって国家も破綻ようになった。この点で、現代は、明らかにDefensiveなrealistの方が理がある。
- 2022年は、世界の軍事費はUSD2,240B。内、米国は877B (39.2%) 圧倒的に世界１位。ロシアは86.3B で前年の5位から3位。米国は、通常戦力、核戦力、サイバー戦略で、半分以下で十二分であるはずである。
- 2022/9現在、米軍は海外178カ国に170K人以上軍隊を派遣し、内日本54K、独36K、韓国25Kで、それぞれ120、119、73ヶ所の軍事基地を有している。米国の海外軍事基地は、少なくとも80カ国以上に750基地を有している。
- 米国は、67カ国との軍事同盟を締結し、これは自分の国にとって不必要な軍事紛争に巻き込まれるリスクが常にある。
- 米国は、冷戦終了後 Offensive realism、あるいはHegemonic policyを採って以降、米国は、イラク、イラン、アフガニスタンなどで戦争介入したが、その結果として米国の立場は良くなっていない。
- 保守派-2 (防御的なrealist):
この考えは、意図的に他の国を挑発したり攻撃的な行動をとらない。自国のsurvival、現在の安全な状態を維持することに注力。
- ソ連封じ込め戦略。George Kennan (ソ連封じ込めの提唱者)は 典型的なClassical conservatistである。またSamuel Huntinton (文明の衝突を著書), Lloyd H. Elliott (国際関係論のエリオット･スクール)もDefensive conservativatistである。
- Water Lippmann (民主主義におけるジャーナリズムの役割、Stereo typeの用語提唱), Kenneith Waltz (核保有国が十数カ国になった方が世界は安定すると提唱)も、WWII中にG. Kennanと意見が合い、US/UK/Japanは、それぞれもEurasiaの陸上戦争に巻き込まれるべきではないとした。
- ビスマルク、タレーラン、ド・ゴールはDefensive realistを実践し、成功した。ビスマルクは過去300年の独帝国は世界一の陸軍を創設したが、勝てる戦争をやってはいけない。戦争に勝ってもろくなことはないし国家の利益にならない。勝っても泥沼化してしまう。独を統一し、ドイツ帝国宰相になってからは防御的なdefensistへの鮮やかな転身をしてbalance of power外交によって独の安全を追求した。
- 日本も1905年の日露戦争後は、政治･経済･軍事的コストが考慮すると、Defensive realistに変身し、中国や朝鮮を支配しようとすべきでなかった。
- 保守派-3 (Hegemonic stability theorist):
この考えでは、米国も中国もHegemonic stability policyを追求しており、それぞれ自国を世界の中心国とみなしている。EquibiliumではなくHiechalcyを明確にする理論を進めており、その意味では、米国も中国もEgo-centricな国である。
- Joseph Neigh, Hard poweerとSoft powerを組み合わせた覇権の維持 (米国の文化、民主主義、人権外交など)を提唱した。中国も米国のSoft powerが大好きなので、米国に背くようなことはないと論評した。Condoleezza Riceは、Iraqを 戦後の日本のようにすればよい、日本は米国に属することを自ら求めているとした。
- John IkenberryもRichrd Haass; 米国外交の主要目的を、War on terrorismに奔走することは、同盟関係や国際機関の機能を弱体化し、米国の国益に奉仕することにならない点を批判した。
- Richard Haassは、ウクライナ戦争についても、戦場ではなくテーブルでの交渉の重要性を強調した。
- T.V. Woltは、冷戦に勝利した後、他の国を米国の設計通りremakeしようとしているとした。
- George Kennan: 米国の政策は、各国を米国のimageに合わせてremakeする政策だった。
- Barry R. Posen: "Restraint"の著者。日本人は、米国との同盟関係では一切自己主張しない。在日の基地の使用状況すら知らない。日本人はこの件で発言がない状況。米軍の駐在は、実際には日本の核保有を阻止するためにあるのに。日本は現在のような対米依存から独立すべきであるし、東アジアにおける核の拡散は避けられない。日本の核保有を米国は認めるべきである。
- 米国対ロシア･中国の対立構造:
- 米国は、ロシアを徹底的に経済制裁をして、ロシアと中国の接近を促してしまった。
- 現在でも、GDP (PPP)では、Russia+中国が米国を50%以上回っている。2028年にはGDP (nominal)でも米国を上回ると言われている。GDPの3%程度を軍事費とすると、軍事費レベルでも米国を上回ることになる。そうなると米国は中国に戦争を仕掛けられない。または、2028年までの中国の経済成長率を2%以下程度に下げさせるかのいずれかである。
|