If the declining state nevertheless has a robust posture and the ability to defend itself, the rising state will be more cautious about possibly provoking a conflict, and will follow a less intense strategy of weakening. On the other hand, the rising state would be tempted to follow a strategy of relegation toward a declining state with a weak military posture, because it could eliminate a rival and attain hegemony. If the declining state has strategic value as an ally, however, but has a weak military posture, the rising state would have to devote sufficient resources to prop it up lest the state collapse - what Shifrinson calls a bolstering strategy. In such circumstances, a less intense strategy of strengthening the declining state would be warranted. 6 A rising state pursuing a supportive strategy toward a declining state with a robust military would not spend as many resources out of concern that it might encourage the weaker state to get involved in a conflict with a third power or alarm other states and encourage a balancing response. Military posture may be classified as robust or weak, depending on the declining state’s capability to deter an attack or inflict unacceptable costs on the opponent. The intensity of the means used depends on the military posture of the declining state. 5 If the international system is bipolar, for example, then the rising power would have little need for the declining state as an ally - indeed, it would be to its advantage to eliminate the rival. 4 Following the structural realism of Kenneth Waltz, Shifrinson’s notion of strategic value depends largely on whether the international system is bipolar or multipolar. The rising power decides on whether to adopt a supportive or predatory strategy depending on the declining state’s strategic value. What determines a rising power’s orientation toward the declining state? Shifrinson follows realist theory in identifying material causes. Relegation and weakening are predatory strategies bolstering and strengthening are supportive ones. 3Īccording to Shifrinson, the combination of goals and means lead to four ideal types of strategies that rising states can pursue: relegation (intense efforts to undermine the great-power status of the declining power) weakening (undermining a declining state’s position gradually through limited efforts) bolstering (a less costly method of arresting a further deterioration of the declining state’s power) or strengthening (determined efforts by the rising state to prevent the declining state from falling out of the ranks of the great powers).
Less intense means - aimed either at predation or supporting the declining state -are defined by a more gradual pace. 2 Intense means seek a change or preservation of the declining state’s power position in the near future. Or the rising power may pursue a supportive goal of attempting to halt or restrain the declining state’s loss of power. A rising power may adopt a predatory goal of seeking to undermine the declining state’s relative position as much as possible. Based on these two variables - goal and means - Shifrinson develops a typology of strategies that a rising power may pursue toward a declining power. 1 Indeed, Shifrinson shows that rising powers may provide assistance to a declining rival, if it is in their strategic interests to do so.Ī rising power’s goal and choice of means influence its strategy toward the declining power.
In this respect, Joshua Shifrinson’s new book, Rising Titans, Falling Giants, breaks new ground. While much has been written about the strategies of rising powers, and whether they are likely to go to war to attain hegemony, very little has been written about their stance toward declining states. Motivated by the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia, scholars have devoted increasing effort to explaining the dynamics of great power transitions. Introduction: Rising Power Strategies toward Declining States: Is There a Goal?
0 kommentar(er)
