США и новые центры силы
The collective volume discusses the fundamental problem of contemporary international relations - evolution of the US relations with key non-Western centers of power and their impact on the international order and global governance development. The book analyzes theories of international relations that study the issues of power distribution in the world, the US strategy in relation to the new non-Western centers of power and relations between the US and Russia, China, India and Brazil.
Today the rise of China is in fact one of the two arguments drawn in support of the idea of Indian-American alliance. Since the end of the noughties both Western and Asian commentators sometimes find it possible to speak of the folding of an anti-China coalition led by the United States and including India. Grounds for such talks are given by the steps of the United States to expand its military presence in Asia, as well as statements by the American political establishment over the past few years.
Another argument, which is drawn is that both the US and India are democracies in contrasts to undemocratic China. Though the idea appeared primarily among American liberals, today one can find examples of its support by Indian experts. In recent months there has been increased attention and support on the part of the United States to the trilateral cooperation of Japan, India and the United States.
How valid are the comments about the anti-Chinese coalition involving India and the United States? It is this issue that the author of the present article addresses. We believe that the rise of China has indeed become one of the incentives for the rapprochement between India and America. The process gained momentum, as previously mentioned, when of G. Bush came to power. Today, however, in our opinion, the Chinese factor does not give such centripetal dynamics to the two countries relations, and talks about anti-China coalition or anti-China alliance are unfounded because the rapprochement has reached a certain limit explained by the divergence of certain interests of the United States and India on global and regional levels. To provide arguments for support of this point of view, an analysis in the spirit of neorealism has been carried out, in which interests of sides has constituted the primary object of investigation.
Many liberal IR theorists argue that the spread of liberal capitalism has a civilizing influence on international relations because it decreases the role and importance of the state in the economy. Commercial relations between individuals and private enterprises based on market principles replace power based relations between states The pursuit of power advantage over other states, which has been the guiding principle of state policy for centuries, becomes an anachronism and is replaced by the pursuit of integration into the larger global economy. States are more willingness to participate in institutions because they establish rules of the game that make economic cooperation run more smoothly. The article questions the logic of this argument. Economic integration and global free trade are opening up new areas of competition between states, as Russia and other rising powers compete with the developed states of the West to attain the most profitable parts of the global marketplace. As a result, rising states are adopting neo-mercantalist policies that seek to increase their power advantages over other states. Like the 17th and 18th Century mercantilists described by Jacob Viner decades ago in his seminal essay “Power and Plenty”, they do not see a tradeoff between the pursuit of state power and economic prosperity but see these as mutually reinforcing goals. Economic integration and global free trade are opening up new areas of competition between states, as Russia and other rising powers compete with the developed states of the West to attain the most profitable parts of the global marketplace. States adopt a range of neo-mercantilist strategies in order to ensure that they are the ones that benefit most from the open world economy. Economic concerns may be taking priority over security concerns, as the prospects of military confrontation between states may have greatly diminished because economic integration makes it prohibitively costly. But states continue to be preoccupied with improving their power relative to other states because they see the pursuit of relative power advantages as being key to advancing their economic goals and securing prosperity for their countries.
The Syrian conflict came in 2015 at the foreground for both the US-Russia relations and global political and military-political governance. The fight against the "Islamic State" and other radical Islamist terrorist groups in Syria (above all AlNusra Fornt, which is Al Qaeda's affiliate) and an ability of the international community to joint forces and establish cooperation on this issue, to overcome or mnimize the inter-state impediments against this, is a test fomr global governance with the US and other centers of power, including Russia, participation.
The chapter discusses the Missile Defense factor in US-Russia relations in conditions of their new systemic confrontation, which started in 2014. The article proves that in conditions of the new confrontation Missile Defense might become a serious factor of military-political escalation between Russia anf the US/NATO.
Energy is the foundation of a civilized life of the humanity and provides a directly impact on economy, politics and security of all states. As any aspect of man's life demands energy expenses, provision of energy security is one of the biggest priorities of the global politics in the XXI century.
Will rising powers use their growing power to transform or overthrow the established international political, economic and institutional order? Or will they work through the established order, using it to achieve their national goals and interests, and ultimately contribute to its maintenance and survival? The empirical record is mixed as today’s rising powers have adopted divergent approaches to the established order. While some have chosen to challenge it quite openly, others have been much more cooperative, while others still have adopted an aloof stance towards the order: they are ready to free ride on the benefits it offers but wary about taking on the burdens of its maintenance. The article looks to explain this variation by considering different factors that fall into the realist, liberal and constructivist traditions. These include the rising power’s level of development and level of integration into the world economy as well as the salience of great power identity to elites and publics in these countries.
While these factors are important, the article ultimately settles on a structural explanation that sees the variation in their power trajectories and which point they are in their rise as the decisive factor that shapes individual rising power's policies and attitudes towards the established order. The current international order is more favorable to the rise of some powers (China, India) than others (Russia). China and India are content to concentrate on internal growth and free ride on US leadership. However, for Russia the current order is not conducive to its continued rise. It must work to change the order to assure its future relevance and status as a great power. Some powers are only beginning their rise (India, Brazil). Unlike Russia and China they have no historical tradition of great power politics. Moreover, they are still focused on the problems of their internal development and are content to work through the existing order. However, as they begin to adjust to their growing power and develop a great power identity of their own their behavior may also change and they too may begin to take on a more confrontational stance towards the existing order.
How will the shift in the distribution of power in the international system impact international order and stability, including the relations among the US and rising powers on hard security issues? How will it impact the ability of the US and the new power centers to cooperate among themselves and address questions of global governance? Will the increasingly complex relationship between the US and the other great powers affect their will and capacity to cooperate on transnational threats and challenges?
There is a long tradition of thinking about these problems in the field of International Relations. While realist theories focus on the power structure of the international system and the implications of its shifts on stability and order, they usually omit globalization-driven determinants of interstate, including great power, behavior, including transnational threats and challenges. By contrast, the liberal tradition favors the latter and discusses cooperation for the sake of the “common good” and “global public goods”, while usually downplaying the role of power and changes to the distribution of power. Constructivist approaches criticize the “rationalist” approach adopted by realists and liberals and instead focus on the impact that ideas, perceptions and identities have on state behavior. However it is unclear where exactly constructivist fall in this debate. Some believe that the experience of participation in international institutions will socialize leaders of rising powers and get them to adopt norms of compromise and cooperation. Others however, point to the resilience of nationalist identities which may make conflict more likely and also note that experience of rivalry and conflict may perpetuate competitive and zero sum thinking.
The present article will present a brief overview of these theoretical approaches. It is intended to serve as theoretical introduction to the articles in this volume, which look to synthesize and bridge the various theoretical approaches in approaching in examining various theoretical and empirical aspects of the changing power dynamics in the modern world. For the most part, adopt a relist approach as the starting point of their analysis and are skeptical of many claims forwarded by liberal theorists. Nevertheless, the articles do try to escape form the rigid determinism imposed by many realist theories and they apply the insights of all of the various schools (realist, liberal, as well as constructivist) in their analysis.