The National Narrative, Indonesian Domestic Politics and Grand Strategy

2021 ◽  
pp. 109-150
Author(s):  
Michael Hatherell ◽  
Alistair Welsh
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Grand Strategy ◽  
National Narrative

Making Geoeconomics an IR Research Program

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Jung Kim
Keyword(s):  
Research Program ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Grand Strategy ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Parsimonious Explanation ◽  
Conceptual Clarity ◽  
The One ◽  
New Research

Abstract In contrast to growing public attention to geoeconomics as the new mode of conducting great power competition, the IR discipline has not actively engaged in conceptual and theoretical analysis from the geoeconomic viewpoint. This article examines issues that geoeconomics needs to solve to become a new theoretical framework in the positivist “American” IR scholarship that dominates research on great power competition. On the one hand, the concept of geoeconomics needs to be redefined and account for a phenomenon that is not already covered in extant IR scholarship. Thus, geoeconomics should be considered as a form of grand strategy and defined as the use of economic instruments to advance mid- to long-term strategic interests in a geographical region of the world. On the other hand, geoeconomics in positivist IR should take into account international economic structure and domestic politics in developing a parsimonious explanation for the conditions to employ geoeconomic grand strategy. In this process, the theorist needs to make an analytical choice to concentrate on certain factors and mechanisms to assure theoretical parsimony. This article concludes that addressing the issues of conceptual clarity and parsimonious theorization would potentially allow geoeconomics to become a new research program in positivist IR.

The Lingering Legacy of Tiananmen: Grand Strategy and Domestic Politics

2003 ◽  
Vol 82 (5) ◽  
pp. 162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert M. Hathaway ◽  
Robert L. Suettinger
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Grand Strategy

The Oxford Handbook of Grand Strategy

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Grand Strategy ◽  
Political Polarization ◽  
Strategic Choices ◽  
Covert Action ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Aging Populations ◽  
To Come

Grand Strategy is a state’s “theory of victory,” explaining how the state will utilize its diverse means to advance and achieve national ends. A clearly articulated, well-defined, and relatively stable grand strategy is supposed to allow the ship of state to steer a steady course through the roiling seas of global politics. However, the obstacles to formulating and implementing grand strategy are, by all accounts, imposing. The Oxford Handbook of Grand Strategy addresses the conceptual and historical foundations, production, evolution, and future of grand strategy from a wide range of standpoints. It seven constituent sections present and critically examine the history of grand strategy, including beyond the West; six distinct theoretical approaches to the subject; the sources of grand strategy, ranging from geography and technology to domestic politics to individual psychology and culture; the instruments of grand strategy’s implementation, from military to economic to covert action; political actors’, including non-state actors’, grand strategic choices; the debatable merits of grand strategy, relative to alternatives; and the future of grand strategy, in light of challenges ranging from political polarization to technological change to aging populations. The result is a field-defining, interdisciplinary, and comparative text that will be a key resource for years to come.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-35
Author(s):  
Jeffrey W. Taliaferro
Keyword(s):  
Research Design ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Nuclear Nonproliferation ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Grand Strategy ◽  
The Core ◽  
Alliance Management ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Key Terms

Chapter 1 undertakes four tasks. First, it questions whether nuclear nonproliferation, along with the containment of great power adversaries, has been a key pillar of US grand strategy since the 1940s. By doing so, it establishes the context for the book’s research questions. Second, the chapter summarizes the core argument: the interaction of international threats and domestic politics shaped the types of nonproliferation strategies (accommodative or coercive) that US presidential administrations pursued toward strategically vulnerable allies in volatile regions. Third, it situates the book within broader literature on nuclear nonproliferation and alliance management. Fourth, the chapter defines the key terms and concepts employed in the analysis and discusses the research design and case selection.

Grand Strategy of the Master Class

2021 ◽  
pp. 106-122
Author(s):  
Matthew Karp
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Grand Strategy ◽  
Strategic Culture ◽  
Antebellum Era ◽  
Fugitive Slave

This chapter discusses the role of Southerners and slavery in US foreign policy from the antebellum era to the Civil War. Studies that explore slavery's specific impact on foreign policy have generally confined themselves to the ways that slaveholders worked to secure fugitive slave laws, enact restrictions on black sailors, or, at most, fight to add new slave states to the Union. However, the kind of domination that slaveholders desired went beyond the need to reinforce their narrow property rights, or even the desire to expand the amount of territory under slave cultivation. Antebellum slaveholders assumed national Cabinet posts to command the power of the entire United States, and then, crucially, to use that power to strengthen slavery in world politics. If grand strategy is “the intellectual architecture that gives form and structure to foreign policy,” slaveholding leaders were not merely provincial sectionalists but bold and cosmopolitan strategic thinkers. Their profound ideological commitment to slavery did not merely affect domestic politics within a divided republic; it left a deep imprint on the “strategic culture” of American foreign policy.

Brazil

2019 ◽  
pp. 149-170
Author(s):  
Carlos R. S. Milani ◽  
Tiago Nery
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Public Policies ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Development Model ◽  
Grand Strategy ◽  
Civilian Control ◽  
Democratic Regime ◽  
Military Dictatorship

After the civil-military dictatorship (1964–1985), the Brazilian re-democratization process coincided with a “double divorce.” The first was between foreign policy and defense policy, the second between military and civilian authorities. It was only in the aftermath of the inauguration of the 1988 Constitution that the Brazilian federal government began constructing a bridge between these two public policies, their respective administrations, and attendant constituencies under the aegis of a democratic regime. Cardoso’s government began implementing a strategy aimed at placing the armed forces under civilian control. But it was during Lula’s and Rousseff’s subsequent administration’s that they laid out a “sketch of Brazil’s grand strategy,” interrupted by Rousseff’s 2016 controversial impeachment.Â?In this context, we analyze the main challenges concerning the conception and the implementation of Brazil’s grand strategy between 2003 and 2014, thus demonstrating how Brazil’s domestic politics and its development model together played key roles in this process.

US Grand Strategy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas P. Cavanna
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
World War I ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Grand Strategy ◽  
International Conflicts ◽  
World War ◽  
Liberal Internationalism ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Cold War

In its most general sense, grand strategy can be defined as the overarching vision that shapes a state’s foreign policy and approach to national security. Like any strategy, it requires the coherent articulation of the state’s ends and means, which necessitates prioritizing vital interests, identifying key threats and opportunities, and (within certain limits) adapting to circumstances. What makes it truly “grand” is that it encompasses both wartime and peacetime, harnesses immediate realities to long-term objectives, and requires the coordination of all instruments of power (military, economic, etc.). Although American leaders have practiced grand strategic thinking since the early days of the Republic, the concept of grand strategy itself only started to emerge during World War I due to the expansion and diversification of the state’s resources and prerogatives, the advent of industrial warfare, and the growing role of populations in domestic politics and international conflicts. Moreover, it was only during World War II that it detached itself from military strategy and gained real currency among decision-makers. The contours, desirability, and very feasibility of grand strategy have inspired lively debates. However, many scholars and leaders consider it a worthy (albeit complex) endeavor that can reduce the risk of resource-squandering, signal intentions to both allies and enemies, facilitate adjustments to international upheavals, and establish a baseline for accountability. America’s grand strategy evolved from relative isolationism to full-blown liberal internationalism after 1945. Yet its conceptualization and implementation are inherently contentious processes because of political/bureaucratic infighting and recurrent dilemmas such as the uncertain geographic delimitation of US interests, the clash of ideals and Realpolitik, and the tension between unilateralism and multilateralism. The end of the Cold War, the 9/11 attacks, China’s rise, and other challenges have further compounded those lines of fracture.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document