During the Scramble for Africa, Liberia was one of only two African countries to remain independent. This thesis shows that the United States used its influence to deter France and Britain from...Show moreDuring the Scramble for Africa, Liberia was one of only two African countries to remain independent. This thesis shows that the United States used its influence to deter France and Britain from encroaching upon Liberian territory during the latter half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, and that increased British and French aggression during the Scramble forced the US to abandon its traditional policy of diplomatic intervention and resort to unprecedented measures that potentially neglected the Monroe doctrine and reinforced a suzerainty-like relationship between the US and Liberia.Show less
Notwithstanding the risk of counter-hegemonic strategies, why could the United States successfully use the centrality of the dollar in the global financial system as a geopolitical weapon in their...Show moreNotwithstanding the risk of counter-hegemonic strategies, why could the United States successfully use the centrality of the dollar in the global financial system as a geopolitical weapon in their sanctions against Iran, both before and after the Iran Nuclear Deal? )?”. This thesis argues that the US derived structural power from the centrality of the dollar in the global financial system, which persisted over time due to the structure of the global financial system. This structural power allowed the US to exclude Iran from the global financial system by applying extraterritorial mechanism to third parties within the financial sanctions. Although this structural power is unique to the network position of the US, more profound counter-hegemonic strategies emerge when this structural power is not embedded in a multilateral coalition.Show less
Territorial disputes have since long been a source of conflict. Still today, economic, political and security interests lead to rising tensions in areas with disputed territories. To date, two of...Show moreTerritorial disputes have since long been a source of conflict. Still today, economic, political and security interests lead to rising tensions in areas with disputed territories. To date, two of these hot areas are the South China Sea (SCS) and the waters of the Arctic region. In the SCS, Chinese claims and activities stand out. In the past years, China has not only continued its, by the international society regarded unlawful, claims of waters, islands and reefs in the area, it has also started to build islands on which it engages in military activities. Initially, the United States (US) was not keen on getting involved in the numerous disputes over territory and adopted a policy of refusing to comment on or participate in any of the clashes. Lately however, the US has expressed its disapproval of Chinese activities and it has transferred vessels to the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) states to contain the Chinese threat in the area (Yoon, 2015). Free access to the SCS is of high importance to the US, both economically as well as geopolitically (Bouchat, 2014), and it considers the respect for international law a national interest (Landler, 2010; Lajeunesse & Huebert, 2019). In addition to the SCS, the Arctic region too has been the scene of controversy for the states surrounding it (Birdwell, 2016). Due to the effects of climate change, the Arctic is now an area with ample opportunities and potential for the winning of natural resources (Conley & Kraut, 2011). Clearly, high economic and strategic interests are at stake in the changing polar region. The effects of climate change have made the Arctic Circle into a centre of geopolitics and territorial disputes with direct implications for US security. Despite these high stakes, the US has mostly lagged behind on other states. The position of the US in the disputes in these highly strategic areas is noteworthy. It raises the question why the hegemon of this current, unipolar world, does not take on a more active and assertive role. If it wants to maintain its unique position, why does it seem as is if it has been reluctant to address these possible threats to its position?Show less
This thesis examines the following research question: how did US Arctic policy concerning oil drilling change from 2001-2017 (Bush and Obama administration)? By researching this question, this...Show moreThis thesis examines the following research question: how did US Arctic policy concerning oil drilling change from 2001-2017 (Bush and Obama administration)? By researching this question, this thesis will examine how their policy discourses and actual policy strategies differed from each other. The thesis contains a comparative case studies between the Bush and Obama administrations, and gives an insight in the debate about (current) energy challenges and environmental issues. The theoretical framework is drawn from constructivist and discursive approaches, and consists of different elements which are subject to individual discourse analysis.Show less
On March 24, 1999, NATO launched Operation Allied Force, a bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in response to ongoing hostilities in Kosovo. US President Bill Clinton...Show moreOn March 24, 1999, NATO launched Operation Allied Force, a bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in response to ongoing hostilities in Kosovo. US President Bill Clinton proudly called the intervention in Kosovo 'the first ever humanitarian war.'1 Others condemned the war, arguing that it was illegal and that NATO was acting on its own interests rather than on humanitarian motives. So why did NATO really intervene in Kosovo? This thesis draws on constructivist and Gramscian theory to explain why NATO intervened in Kosovo, and to shed light on the most salient issue: the relationship between and the relative importance of humanitarian values and strategic interests. Constructivists believe that state identities and interests are not given, instead, they are socially constructed. Interests are not only defined by material facts but also by social facts, like norms and ideas. Therefore, foreign policy decision making is more about defining national interests than about defending them. A constructivist analysis of the Clinton administration's decision to intervene in Kosovo reveals that this decision was shaped by social facts, like shared notions about the grounds on which it is legitimate to carry out a military intervention, and norms of behaviour, like human rights. These perceptions were shaped by social and cultural factors, like the memory of the two World Wars, the national trauma of the Vietnam war, previous wars in the Balkans and the Weinberger doctrine. An analysis of Clinton's rhetoric on Kosovo reveals that he was expanding previous understandings of what constitutes the national interest to include standing up to human rights abuses. In this sense, he was advancing humanitarian norms as a cause for action. These norms did not only influence the way in which the war was presented and defended, but also the way it was fought. The constructivist perspective therefore attaches great causal significance to norms and ideas. The neo-Gramscian school in international relations draws on the work of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, particularly the concept of hegemony. According to Gramsci, the hegemony of the bourgeoisie was not just based on coercive power, but also on their ability to construct a broad cultural and ideological consensus. A state can become hegemonic by constructing a world order which most other states accept or perceive to be in their interest. In the end, however, this order primarily exists to serve the interests of the elites. From this perspective, the notion of universal human rights is one element of a global civil society which is marked by a growing consensus on morals, values and rights. The end of the Cold War brought about an international order based on liberal values like democracy, free trade and human rights. Though not a complete hegemony, this world order certainly had hegemonic elements. Milosevic's actions in Kosovo were a transgression against these values. From this perspective, the war over Kosovo was essentially an international police mission, designed to punish Milosevic's deviation from international norms. The military component was supported by international institutions, like the UN Security Council, which, though it stopped short of endorsing the intervention, also failed to oppose it, and the IMF and the EU, which has already begun making plans for the reconstruction of Kosovo and the economic future of the region before the bombs had stopped falling. International civil society, represented by NGOs and the media, also played their part by promoting humanitarian values and calling attention to the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. The extent of this hegemony is demonstrated by the failure of opposing states like Russia and China to mount an effective counter-hegemony. For constructivists, then, the decision to intervene in Kosovo reflected changing perceptions of the national interest and foreign policy priorities. Clinton claimed to act in the national interest, and undoubtedly believed this himself, but his perception of the national interest was not necessarily based on objective facts. It was shaped by historical experiences, considerations of legitimacy and shared understandings about human rights. Clinton acted as a norm entrepreneur by advancing the notion that it is legitimate to use armed force against a sovereign state to stand up to human rights abuses. Gramscians would agree with the constructivists that Kosovo represented a normative shift and that the war was fought to defend a set of values. However, the Gramscians do not take these norms and values at face value. Instead, they trace them back to the material interests of the elites. They draw attention to the striking coherence between Western military power, its ideology and international institutions. The constructivist and Gramscian perspectives have proven to be useful here because of their ability to go beyond a simple understanding of values and interests as binary opposites. It is all too easy to fall into the trap of depicting these two categories as mutually exclusive. The two theories disagree on the exact relationship between the two: constructivists believe that norms, values and ideas define interests, Gramscians believe that they ultimately serve interests. Another point of divergence is that constructivism emphasizes change while Gramscianism is more interested in continuity. From a constructivist perspective, state behavior is based on social facts which are, by nature, fluid and continually changing. For the Gramscians, the basic characteristics of the international order do not change, they continue to favour the strong over the weak. This brings out a weakness in Gramscian theory: it tends to place everything in a grand narrative about the dominance of the economic elites. When applying theory to a historical event, there is always the risk of adopting the facts to fit the preconceived notions that are present in the theoretical framework. Theory is valuable when applied critically, because it allows us to consider the facts from different viewpoints. If this analysis has succeeded in revealing different ways of looking at and thinking about the facts, then it has been a fruitful exercise.Show less
