V Bridge Builder, Humanitarian Donor, Reformer of Global Order

2021 ◽  
pp. 129-152
Author(s):  
Oliver Stuenkel
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Jakub J. Grygiel ◽  
A. Wess Mitchell ◽  
Jakub J. Grygiel ◽  
A. Wess Mitchell

From the Baltic to the South China Sea, newly assertive authoritarian states sense an opportunity to resurrect old empires or build new ones at America's expense. Hoping that U.S. decline is real, nations such as Russia, Iran, and China are testing Washington's resolve by targeting vulnerable allies at the frontiers of American power. This book explains why the United States needs a new grand strategy that uses strong frontier alliance networks to raise the costs of military aggression in the new century. The book describes the aggressive methods which rival nations are using to test American power in strategically critical regions throughout the world. It shows how rising and revisionist powers are putting pressure on our frontier allies—countries like Poland, Israel, and Taiwan—to gauge our leaders' commitment to upholding the American-led global order. To cope with these dangerous dynamics, nervous U.S. allies are diversifying their national-security “menu cards” by beefing up their militaries or even aligning with their aggressors. The book reveals how numerous would-be great powers use an arsenal of asymmetric techniques to probe and sift American strength across several regions simultaneously, and how rivals and allies alike are learning from America's management of increasingly interlinked global crises to hone effective strategies of their own. The book demonstrates why the United States must strengthen the international order that has provided greater benefits to the world than any in history.


MedienJournal ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 15
Author(s):  
Chin-Chuan Lee

MedienJournal ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 15-23
Author(s):  
Chin-Chuan Lee

Author(s):  
Michael Goodhart

This chapter shows that three of the central debates within global normative theory are afflicted by the three pathologies associated with the dominant approach. Constructivist methods for identifying principles of justice are both blatantly undemocratic and severely distortional; debates about the scope of justice are depoliticizing, question begging, and philosophically irresolvable; claims about how the global order affects the poor depoliticize and distort power relations in the global economy and ignore the ideological context in which the claims themselves operate. The argument is not that IMT gives problematic answers to these questions but rather that the questions themselves are unhelpful and unnecessary, artifacts of the approach. In making these arguments, the chapter continues the work of defamiliarization begun in the previous chapter.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document