LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteWell? I'm waiting for your thoughts. Care to cite any conceptual framework for analysis?Originally Posted by bugs
)
In the meantime, I'll also have a look at the links you provided (thanks).
To make this intellectual exercise i propose to have a look at a small countryI take the time to read more than just comments, if you want we can start a new discussion thread on the threat perception of small states; I am more than willing to debate you on the subject, and I come well armed.
with limited resources and they're perception of threat (internal and external).
Lets start first with ....: SERBIA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Serbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Serbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Serbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Serbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_culture
I would like to welcome any poster from this country, or anyone with a interest in this mater to share his/ hers insights on the issue.
Well? I'm waiting for your thoughts. Care to cite any conceptual framework for analysis?
In the meantime, I'll also have a look at the links you provided (thanks).
Last edited by sunnyamy; 21 Jan 09, at 01:18.
Last edited by bugs; 21 Jan 09, at 01:59.
1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hywc...eature=related
2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPQHv...eature=related
3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNoyT...eature=related
4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3l0f...eature=related
5.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LBqH...eature=related
6.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CIKY...eature=related
Sorry, late to this thread. First of all we should probably set up definitions. What are the parameters of the debate?
What defines a small state: population, land size, etc.
How big or how small is a "small state": Less then 1 million population, Less then 5 million, or 10 million?
How small is too small: What of the micro-states in Europe? I think for our purposes we can safely exclude the Holy See. Though it is only a few city blocks its power and influence is far greater than its actual size thus insofar as it exists as a "state" so its threat perception is non-existent.
San Marino, Andorra, Monaco, and Liechtenstien are also micro-states that have pre-existing security arrangements with larger European powers. Also there is Lesotho and Swaziland in Africa.
Bugs wants to start off with Serbia, which is fine. A small state by land area, also insecure, and where some problems came from. Serbia has had as its historical patron, Russia, a Great Power, that was not afraid to come to its aid in 1914. So Serbia has historically bandwagoned with a great power to ensure its security. All right I will come back with some sources on Serbian, and other states' threat perceptions. But in the meantime we should define what is a small state, and what isn't one.
The problem is that if we are to strict according to this definition :
Austria is a small state and Hungary is not , however the difference between this two is small and many issues such as military, economics, etc would make our definition questionable.
There has to be some limitation though. Compared to the US Canada is a small state, compared to China, the US is a small state: in terms of population. We have to use some definition. If you think mine are too restricting then by all means come up with some of your own. I am now reading a book on small states in alliance formation, i.e. why do small states form alliances. I can post what their definition of what a small state is in short order.
Please do.
Well we can use Small and Singer's definition though I feel it is too broad.
Major Powers from 1816-present: Austria-Hungary-1816-1918; China 1950-Present; France 1816-1940, 1944-Present; Germany/Prussia-1816-1918, 1925-1945, 1990-present; Italy (Sardinia)-1860-1943; Japan-1895-1945, 1990-Present; Russia/USSR-1816-1917, 1922-Present; United Kingdom-1816-Present; USA-1899-Present
Every state that is not one of these is a minor power or small state defined as:.states whose diplomatic and material resources are so limited that their leaders focus mostly on the protection of their territorial integrity rather than on the pursuit of more far-reaching global objectives
Small States and Alliances, ed. Erich Reiter, Heinz Gartner, Physica-Verlag (New York: 2001) pg. 15-16. (Source for both bolded text and quoted text)
What strategies do these states, so defined, employ to deal with external threats. I present three: Balancing, bandwagoning, and buck-passing. The formation of alliances both formal and informal by these states with a greater power is one example of small states dealing with their threat perceptions.
Serbia has been used as an example, and it has bandwagoned with Russia, a great power, that came to its aid when Serbia was threatened by another major power. That triggered WWI, but in the end Serbia survived as Yugoslavia, gaining more territory to prevent another major power from invading it. That created problems of its own later on. However Serbia's threat perception was not unfounded, and it employed a smart strategy that utlimately ended up with it having considerably more power, and its major antagonist utterly destroyed.
States whose diplomatic and material resources are so limited that their leaders focus mostly on the protection of their territorial integrity rather than on the pursuit of more far-reaching global objectives.
We could safely include Hungary and Austria in this category since it`s not longer an empire.
Apart from the strategies you proposed i would like to ad one more:
Bait and bleed ( The aim is to induce rival states to engage in a protracted war of attrition against each other , while the baiter who encouraged the conflict remains on the sidelines, maintaining its military strength.)
Last edited by bugs; 31 Jan 09, at 20:11.
Sure we can include Austria and Hungary of today. So you've read Mearsheimer as well, eh? Buck-passing and bait and bleed can lead to the same outcome. Buck-passing is deterrent in nature and bait and bleed is offensive in nature.
Hero,
You might be able to help me out with something. I've always been intrigued by Costa Rica. As I understand it there has been no Costa Rican Military since 1948 - only police & Coast Guard.
This likely helps to explain Costa Rica's remarkable record (by Latin American standards) of democratic government. What I am curious about are security arrangements. Granted, Costa Rica only borders 2 other nations, but it has had territorial issues with at least one (Nicaragua). Given the somewhat Lockean view of the world that pops up on WAB from time to time, how has a nation with no army avoided invasion?
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
The US and Costa Rica are extremely close. Given the history of relations between the two countries, I believe the US would act take military action within hours if Costa Rica found itself under threat of invasion, and that Costa Rica is, for all practical purposes, a protectorate of the US.
Besides, there's so many Americans in Costa Rica at any one time in literally every part of the country, anybody who chose to attack would be a complete and utter moron.
Of course, it only borders two countries: Panama and Nicaragua.
Ironduke is right Costa Rica and the US are close though that is true for many Central American states. All these states were merged as one when the Spainish left, and Mexico basically didn't want them. "With the exception of the Portuguese monarchy seated at Rio de Janerio, the United States was the first nation to recognize the indpendence of the Latin America republics."- Diplomatic Relations between United States and Costa Rica, 1823-882.
Basically with the Monroe Doctrine the US prevented or tried to prevent (not so much luck in Mexico) foreign influences in the Americas. That would explain the lack of overseas invasions, it would not however prevent another local state from invading Costa Rica. I suspect though that due to the fact that all those states in Central America are small with small armies they were not keen on doing too much invading (Though Panama was controlled by Colombia). Also many of the other states in Central America had internal problems; civil wars, bad leaders, etc. that could have kept them from invasion.
So I think it is partially due to the US looking out for Costa Rica, also the lack of opportunities, and the good governance within Costa Rica that has led it to be "invasion-free" in our Lockean world (or perhaps you meant Hobbseian-Hobbes was more clear and more stark about the brutality of life in the state of nature than Locke was).
I could read up more on the issue if you like. I am actually preparing a paper on the role of small states in alliance formation, I can see if anything cross-references with Costa Rica. It is an intriguing state.
Last edited by Herodotus; 02 Feb 09, at 22:06.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: