IR Theory for Lovers_ a Valentine’s Guide _ Foreign Policy

8/17/2019 IR Theory for Lovers_ a Valentine’s Guide _ Foreign Policy

1/10

2/16/2016 IR theory for lovers: a valentine’s guide | Foreign Policy

http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/02/13/ir-theory-for-lovers-a-valentines-guide/ 1/10

IR theory for lovers: a valentine’s guide

FEBRUARY 13, 2009BY STEPHEN M. WALT

Tomorrow is Valentine’s Day. As a public service, I would like to remind FP readers of the important insights that international relations theory can

provide for people in love.

To begin with, any romantic partnership is essentially an alliance, and alliances are a core concept on international relations. Alliances bring many

benefits to the members (or else why would we form them?) but as we also know, they sometimes reflect irrational passions and inevitably limit each

member’s autonomy. Many IR theorists believe that institutionalizing an alliance makes it more effective and enduring, but that’s also why making a

relationship more formal is a significant step that needs to be carefully considered.

Of course, IR theorists have also warned that allies face the twin dangers of abandonment and entrapment: the more we fear that our partners might leave

us in the lurch (abandonment), the more likely we are to let them drag us into obligations that we didn’t originally foresee (entrapment). When you find

yourself gamely attending your partner’s high school reunion or traveling to your in-laws for Thanksgiving dinner every single year, you’ll know what I

mean.

Realists have long argued that bipolar systems are the most stable. So if any of you lovers out there are thinking of adding more major actors to the

system, please reconsider. As most of us eventually learn, trying to juggle romantic relationships in a multi-polar setting usually leads to crises, and

sometimes to open warfare. It’s certainly not good for alliance stability.

http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Alliances-Cornell-Studies-Security/dp/0801494184/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234541897&sr=1-1http://foreignpolicy.com/author/stephen-m-waltmailto:?subject=Check%20out%20this%20story%20on%20Foreign%20Policy&body=IR%20theory%20for%20lovers%3A%20a%20valentine%26%238217%3Bs%20guide%20-%20http%3A%2F%2Fforeignpolicy.com%2F2009%2F02%2F13%2Fir-theory-for-lovers-a-valentines-guide%2Fhttp://www.amazon.com/Theory-International-Politics-Kenneth-Waltz/dp/0075548526http://www.amazon.com/Alliance-Politics-Cornell-Studies-Security/dp/0801434025http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Wallander_NATO_Article.pdfhttp://www.amazon.com/After-Victory-G-John-Ikenberry/dp/0691050910http://books.google.com/books?id=_GA7GwWTyxsC&dq=%22international+institutions%22&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=1JuVSdvmNYqhtwfZrvCsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=12&ct=result#PPP1,M1http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Alliances-Cornell-Studies-Security/dp/0801494184/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234541897&sr=1-1mailto:?subject=Check%20out%20this%20story%20on%20Foreign%20Policy&body=IR%20theory%20for%20lovers%3A%20a%20valentine%26%238217%3Bs%20guide%20-%20http%3A%2F%2Fforeignpolicy.com%2F2009%2F02%2F13%2Fir-theory-for-lovers-a-valentines-guide%2Fhttp://foreignpolicy.com/author/stephen-m-walthttp://foreignpolicy.com/2009/02/13/ir-theory-for-lovers-a-valentines-guide/


2/10



IR theory also warns us that shifts in the balance of power are dangerous. There’s an obvious warning here: relationships are more likely to have trouble if

one partner’s status or power changes rapidly. So that big promotion that you both celebrated may be a good thing overall, but it’s likely to alter

expectations and force you and your partner to make serious adjustments. The same is true if one of you gets laid off. Bottom line: it can take a lot of

patience and love to work through a major shift in the balance of power within a relationship.

Even the best relationships have their bumpy moments, of course, because even human beings who love each other deeply can have trouble figuring out

what the other person wants and why they are acting as they are. IR theorists have written lots of smart things about misperception, and it’s good to keep

some of them in mind. We tend to see our own behavior as constrained by our circumstances, for example, while attributing the behavior of others to

their own attributes and wants. “I’m doing this because I have to, but he’s acting this way because that’s just who he is!” This sort of perceptual bias is

potent recipe for conflict spirals, something IR theorists have long warned about. A small disagreement occurs, and each person’s attempt to defend their

own position starts to look like an aggressive and unjustified attack. And so we discover another core IR concept: escalation.

I’m hoping a few readers are nodding their heads in agreement at this point.

Which brings me to an especially helpful IR concept: appeasement. The term has been unfairly denigrated since Munich, but it is a critical strategy for

preserving any romantic relationship. And if you don’t believe me, ask my wife, who made me put this paragraph in.

So maybe learning some IR theory can actually help your love life. If it does, and you’re lucky enough to find the right person, and then you might decide

you want to institutionalize the relationship by getting married. (This assumes that you’re straight, of course, or fortunate enough to live in a part of the

world that recognizes the rights of gay people to marry as well).

http://www.amazon.com/Appeasement-International-Politics-Stephen-Rock/dp/0813121604http://www.amazon.com/Politics-International-Crisis-Escalation-Decision-Making/dp/1860640648http://www.amazon.com/Perception-Misperception-International-Politics-University/dp/0691100497http://www.amazon.com/Change-World-Politics-Robert-Gilpin/dp/0521273765


3/10



And then the two of you might also decide to mobilize your combined resources and grow your own alliance network — i.e., have kids — either via the

traditional method or by adopting. If you do, you’ll get to learn about a whole new set of IR concepts, like deterrence, coercion, salami tactics, and

overcommitment. But that’s another set of problems, and maybe I’ll wait till Father’s Day to blog about them.

Rick Gershon/Getty Images

YOU MAY LIKE BY TABOOLA SPONSORED LINKS

COOKS.NDTV.COM

HEALTHMINDBODIES

MYUNIVERSE

FLINTOBOX

EAT THIS FRUIT FOR FABULOUS SKIN

20 REASONS WHY YOU ARE UNSUCCESSFUL AT LOSING WEIGHT

INVESTING RS.1000 PER MONTH CAN LEAD TO LONG TERM WEALTH CREATION.

PARENTS LOVE THIS BOX FOR HELPING KIDS DISCOVER A WORLD OUTSIDE TV

http://popup.taboola.com/en/?template=colorbox&taboola_utm_source=foreignpolicy&taboola_utm_medium=bytaboola&taboola_utm_content=thumbnails-c:Below%20Article%20Thumbnails:http://popup.taboola.com/en/?template=colorbox&taboola_utm_source=foreignpolicy&taboola_utm_medium=bytaboola&taboola_utm_content=thumbnails-c:Below%20Article%20Thumbnails:http://popup.taboola.com/en/?template=colorbox&taboola_utm_source=foreignpolicy&taboola_utm_medium=bytaboola&taboola_utm_content=thumbnails-c:Below%20Article%20Thumbnails:


4/10



MORE FROM FOREIGN POLICY BY TABOOLA

THE TOP 5 FOREIGN POLICY LESSONS OF THE PAST 20 YEARS

ONE WORLD, RIVAL THEORIES

DON’T BLAME MY ARMY FOR THE LACK OF BLACK OFFICERS IN COMBAT COMMANDS

THE WORLD’S 10 MOST DANGEROUS COUNTRIES

THE PROBLEM WITH KISSINGER’S WORLD ORDER

http://popup.taboola.com/en/?template=colorbox&taboola_utm_source=foreignpolicy&taboola_utm_medium=bytaboola&taboola_utm_content=organic-thumbnails-c:Below%20Article%20Thumbnails%203rd:


5/10



WE’RE GETTING OUT OF THE MARINES BECAUSE WE WANTED TO BE PART OF AN ELITE FORCE

Mitchell’s shocking failure!

FEBRUARY 4, 2009BY MARC LYNCH

George Mitchell was appointed to bring about Middle East peace, but he has returned from the region empty-handed — no peace in the Middle East. His

mission is clearly a total failure. The Obama administration has been humiliated! There’s obviously no difference between Obama and Bush! His failure

will embolden America’s enemies, making it imperative to stop the stimulus package! It’s time to… um, ahem, sorry. Thought I was writing for a

newspaper op-ed page for a minute there. Let’s try again.

Middle East envoy George Mitchell’s maiden trip to the region was an important first step, but it also contained some troubling signals. It was extremely

important for the Obama administration to demonstrate immediate, high-level engagement with the issue after Bush’s near-total disengagement. It was

also a good step to announce that Mitchell will be returning to the region before the end of the month and will spearhead a sustained, ongoing and high

level engagement. A listening tour was appropriate, both because of Obama’s repeated stressing of the importance of listening and because the half-

staffed administration isn’t ready to put forward its own initiatives yet.

mailto:?subject=Check%20out%20this%20story%20on%20Foreign%20Policy&body=Mitchell%26%238217%3Bs%20shocking%20failure%21%20-%20http%3A%2F%2Fforeignpolicy.com%2F2009%2F02%2F04%2Fmitchells-shocking-failure%2Fhttp://foreignpolicy.com/author/marc-lynchhttp://foreignpolicy.com/2009/02/04/mitchells-shocking-failure/


6/10



But there were some ominous signals too. Mitchell’s itinerary apparently only included meetings with one side of the great Arab divide: the Saudis,

Egyptians, Jordanians, Fatah. Little surprise, then, if he heard few new ideas. What’s more, in his comments with Secretary Clinton on his return he

signaled no new thinking on the Hamas question. Her remarks about Hamas — “Hamas knows the conditions that have been set forth” — could have

been delivered by Condoleezza Rice. The Arab “moderate” camp followed his trip with a gathering in Abu Dhabi which could have been held in the Bush

years: demonizing Iran, bashing Hamas, and promoting the schism between the “moderate” and “rejection” camps.

Iconic image of the Arab faux-reconciliation at the Kuwait meeting

Mitchell is not going to be able to break through this stalemate with the old playbook. He needs to engage both sides of the great Arab divide, and he

needs to take the lead in bridging rather than exacerbating those divisions. Obama’s approach to the Middle East during the campaign was built upon

serious dialogue with adversaries and upon a holistic regional conception which captured the relationships among the various issues. But Clinton and

Mitchell’s first moves instead run the risk of reverting to the Bush style of sharpening regional divisions.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/02/arab-nations-mu.htmlhttp://www.alquds.co.uk/index.asp?fname=today%EF%BF%BD3z50.htm&storytitle=ff%E3%C7%D0%C7%20%27%ED%D8%C8%CE%E6%E4%27%20%DD%ED%20%C7%C8%E6%D9%C8%ED%BFfff&storytitleb=%DA%C8%CF%20%C7%E1%C8%C7%D1%ED%20%DA%D8%E6%C7%E4&storytitlec=http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/02/115864.htm


7/10



That has to change if Mitchell hopes to find new paths through this mess. The intensity of the intra-Arab divisions will only make this harder, and it

doesn’t make sense to encourage them either intentionally or unintentionally. The wounds of last month’s dueling summits have not healed, and the

official Arab order appears to be even more disconnected from popular opinion than normal. The leaders Mitchell went with are caught up in nasty

political and personal arguments. They are hunkering down into their mutually hostile bunkers, and are likely in no mood to advocate an American

outreach to the other camp.

But a strong signal from Washington that the time has come to bridge regional divides rather than stoke the divisions could change that in a hurry. I think

that much of the Arab public is hungry for such a move, and so are a lot of the Arab “fence-sitters” who fear getting caught up in the diplomatic cross-fire.

My strong sense is that Mitchell understands this, and sees his mission as part of Obama’s conception of a wider regional restructuring. But he needs to

avoid getting trapped by the business-as-usual instincts that others bring to the table.

So what should he do?

First, go to Doha. If Mitchell isn’t going to talk to Hamas, he should at least talk to the only close American ally which does. Talking to Sarkozy, who talked

to the Qataris, is good but doesn’t have quite the same impact because it doesn’t send the same signal. If he doesn’t go to Qatar, then he implicitly

validates the current lines of division and sends a strong but possibly unintended signal endorsing the Arab lines of division.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gPzdzo6HA4cVSZN7-QxeUVM1GjbA


8/10



Second, pay attention to the whole Arab public. Mitchell needs to recognize that the leaders he’s meeting represent only one side in a sharply divided

region, are out of touch with broad swathes of public opinion, and have only limited ability to shape public attitudes. There’s a reason that al-Jazeera

dominated the Arab coverage of Gaza and not al-Arabiya — and Washington needs to understand the reasons for that.. and the implications for successful

diplomacy. If he doesn’t see what al-Jazeera viewers see out of Gaza, he’s just not going to understand why they feel the way they do right now — so

watch.

Third, be open to a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. If the attempts (in Cairo or elsewhere) to broker a Palestinian national unity government succeed, the

U.S. shouldn’t veto it or work to destroy it as the Bush administration did. This doesn’t look likely right now, with acrimony running high and Hamas

leaders talking about the formation of an alternative to the PLO. It’s even less likely if regional actors think that the U.S. will reject it. But if regional

players thought that the U.S. might be supportive of such a unity government, their calculations could quickly change.

Finally, don’t give in to the status quo. There’s going to be strong pressure on the Obama administration from inside and outside to revert to standard

practice on all of these issues. Doing so is a recipe for failure. I don’t think that’s why George Mitchell took on this assignment. Making progress will

require a long, hard slog but at this stage at least let’s hope that he’s slogging in the right direction.

YOU MAY LIKE BY TABOOLA SPONSORED LINKS

YOUR CHILD WILL FIND THEIR INNER EXPLORER WITH THIS BOX

FLINTOBOX

WHY WAS THIS TOP GAME BANNED FROM INDIA?

http://popup.taboola.com/en/?template=colorbox&taboola_utm_source=foreignpolicy&taboola_utm_medium=bytaboola&taboola_utm_content=thumbnails-c:Below%20Article%20Thumbnails:http://popup.taboola.com/en/?template=colorbox&taboola_utm_source=foreignpolicy&taboola_utm_medium=bytaboola&taboola_utm_content=thumbnails-c:Below%20Article%20Thumbnails:http://popup.taboola.com/en/?template=colorbox&taboola_utm_source=foreignpolicy&taboola_utm_medium=bytaboola&taboola_utm_content=thumbnails-c:Below%20Article%20Thumbnails:


9/10



GADGETS.NDTV.COM

REUTERS TV

OBAMA'S SURPRISING TIES TO TOP CEOS

HEALTHMINDBODIES

20 REASONS WHY YOU ARE UNSUCCESSFUL AT LOSING WEIGHT

MORE FROM FOREIGN POLICY BY TABOOLA

PUTIN SENDS HIS ‘LEOPARD’ TO THE BATTLEFIELD OF EASTERN UKRAINE

FORGET SYKES-PICOT. IT’S THE TREATY OF SÈVRES THAT EXPLAINS THE MODERN MIDDLE EAST.

SORRY, FAREED: SAUDI ARABIA CAN BUILD A BOMB ANY DAMN TIME IT WANTS TO

http://popup.taboola.com/en/?template=colorbox&taboola_utm_source=foreignpolicy&taboola_utm_medium=bytaboola&taboola_utm_content=organic-thumbnails-c:Below%20Article%20Thumbnails%203rd:


10/10



THE WORLD’S 10 MOST DANGEROUS COUNTRIES

ONE WORLD, RIVAL THEORIES

GERMANY’S JEWISH PROBLEM

IR Theory for Lovers_ a Valentine’s Guide _ Foreign Policy

Documents

Transcript of IR Theory for Lovers_ a Valentine’s Guide _ Foreign Policy