#irtheory

With the UK referendum to remain or leave the EU only days away, both sides are taking increasingly sharper stances on issues such as the economy and migration. One area that most voters aren’t considering but is likely to have great consequences is the effect of a Brexit on European geopolitics. Specifically, will a Brexit see a shift in a balance of power away from the West in favour of other states with a vested interest in Europe, such as Russia? Many strategists argue that it will. 

To speak of a balance of power is to invoke realist theory, first popularised by neoclassical realists such as Hans Morgenthau and E.H. Carr and by neorealists such as Kenneth Waltz. According to realists, power is a “zero-sum game”, where the reduction of power by one actor necessarily equates to an increase in power of the other actors. Power therefore is relative. To a realist, the key question is to what extent does Britain currently enhance the European Union’s power, and how would a loss damage this? 

To continue this analysis from a realist perspective, power is defined in terms of military power. Those in favour of a Brexit often argue that the UK’s security relationship with Europe won’t be affected, as NATO provides the overarching security framework for Europe. This is largely true, however the EU does act in a joint capacity to provide foreign policy. Recent examples have been the EU’s collective stance on its foreign policy towards Iran, and its joint sanctions on Russia. To date, sanctions against Russia have been relatively successful in dampening overt Russian aggression in the Ukraine and Crimea. These sanctions have been underpinned by the credible deterrence of NATO and the EU. The UK is one of only two major armed forces within the EU, aside from France. The departure and ensuing uncertainty of Britain from the EU could weaken this deterrent. 

Thus in the short and medium term, the uncertainty and distraction provided by a Brexit could be a signal for Putin, and tip the balance of power a little closer to Russia’s favour. Russia’s recent incursions into Crimea and the Ukraine have hinged on leveraging the divisions and uncertainties of the West, so that Putin can gain a foothold for his objectives. This has been followed by superficial compromises with the West as necessary. Over the longer term, the UK outside of the EU could show a greater degree of foreign policy independence and autonomy. The extent of this would depend on the formal arrangements made with the EU across the spectrum of trade, financial and security issues, as well as less formalised rules and norms. Reliance on Russian gas would also continue to be a factor in UK foreign policy decision making. 

By stepping outside the realist framework, we can acknowledge other forms of power and influence, particular the concept of soft power, popularised by Joseph Nye from the liberal school of international relations. Much is written of the EU’s soft power - its cultural attraction to outsiders for “European” values and way of life. No further proof of its attractiveness can be seen by the immigrants from across the world who chose to call the EU home. However in the context of a EU-Russian power dynamic, soft power doesn’t have much contemporary relevance. Furthermore the UK’s soft power is quite intentionally framed by the British as distinct from European soft power. A Brexit would not take much from the EU’s stock of soft power, and the soft power that it does wield has largely been ineffective to a Russian audience in recent years. During the Cold War, much was written of the soft power appeal of the West for East Germans. This had influence in the context of a broken economy and a gradual willingness to move towards Western norms over a number of years. The difference with contemporary Russia is that despite a struggling economy, Putin has managed to rally domestic support over his vision for a “strong Russia”, invoking former glories through greater ambitions on the world stage. This won’t last forever, however until Putin’s appeal wanes, the soft power of the EU and broader West won’t be of great consequence. 

Essential Question How can we use intellectual constructs and analytical tools to make sense of (and predict?) complex social phenomena? 

Learning Objectives Students will become familiar with leading theories and schools of thought in world politics, with the explicit focus on understanding (a) the different ways each seeks to explain the world and (b) each theory’s underlying methodological, epistemological, and ontological assumptions. 

Bibliography Bruce Bueno de Mesquita predicts Iran's future [Video]. (2009, April). Drezner, Daniel W. Theories of International Politics and Zombies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2011. Print. Kegley, C. W., & Raymond, G. A. (2012). Analyzing World Politics. In The global future: A brief introduction to world politics (pp. 3-21). Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Snyder, J. (2004). One World, Rival Theories. Foreign Policy, 145, 52-63. Soomopublishing (Director). (2011, June 10). Theory in Action: Constructivism [Video]. Soomopublishing (Director). (2011, May 11). Theory in Action: Liberalism [Video]. Soomopublishing (Director). (2011, May 04). Theory in Action: Realism [Video]. 

Thinking Visibly Circle of Viewpoints, "One World, Rival Theories"

Using Circle of Viewpoints, assign each group a theory that is not their preferred one. Groups should then use the following script to present their ideas in a 5-minute presentation. Brainstorm a list of different perspectives and then use this script skeleton to explore each one: 

"I am thinking of ... the topic... From the point of view of ... the viewpoint you've chosen."

"I think ... describe the topic from your viewpoint. Be an actor - take on the character of your viewpoint."

"A question I have from this viewpoint is ... ask a question from this viewpoint."

Wrap up: What new ideas do you have about the topic that you didn't have before? What new questions do you have?

Demonstrations may be recorded on video for publication.

  See, Think,Wonder Complete a See-Think-Wonder chart for each of the following video clips: 

Shaun of the Dead-Fight Scene (Queen, "Don't Stop Me Know)

Night of the Living Dead-Basement Scene (Dramatized)

Circle of Viewpoints, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita predicts Iran's future [Video]. (2009, April). Behavioral Science Cannot Advance the Study of World Politics 1. Make a claim about the topic --> Claim: An explanation or interpretation of some aspect of the topic. 2. Identify support for your claim--> Support: Things you see, feel, and know that support your claim.  3. Ask a question related to your claim--> Question: What's left hanging? What isn't explained? What new reasons does your claim raise?

Assessments

(5 marks) Students will produce a Take Away for Snyder, J. (2004). One World, Rival Theories. Foreign Policy, 145, 52-63. This should (a) be shared with your colleagues via our tumblelog and (b) be the basis for discussion. 

(5 marks) Students will produce a Take Away for your assigned chapter; this should (a) be shared with your colleagues via our tumblelog and (b) be the basis for discussion. Discussion Schedule: Please comment on this post as to which chapter where you would like to lead the discussion. Chapter list: Introduction...to the Undead; The Zombie Literature; Defining a Zombie; Distracting Debates About Flesh-Eating Ghouls; The Realpolitik of the Living Dead; Regulating the Undead in a Liberal World Order; Neconservatism and the Axis of Evil Dead; The Social Construction of Zombies; Domestic Politics: Are All Zombie Politics Local?; Bureaucratic Politics: The "Pulling & Hauling" of Zombies; We're Only Human: Psychological Responses to the Undead; Conclusion...or So You Think